Taking The Plunge, Again

After much deliberation and consultation on finances, I finally decided that an upgrade for the Official Malfunctioning Laptop Of Captain's Quarters^TM was overdue. Thanks to two generous gift certificates from my last birthday, Amazon wound up getting my business even if they didn't handle my last order very well. I took a trip out to Best Buy to see if they could beat the Amazon price on two models on which I had focused: the Sony Vaio FS640 and the HP 1040 US. Going to the store also gave me an opportunity to see both models to get an idea of their physical build, and also to see if anything else looked better for the money.

Both models would have worked for me. I want to get back to an old hobby of DVD production for family films, and while my desktop does that reasonably well, I've gotten so used to the laptop that I'd like to have that capability. Obviously, after the experience I've had with the Toshiba Satellite, I'd rather get a machine from a more reliable manufacturer, and both HP and Sony have better track records on that score.

The Sony Vaio was the more expensive of the two, and had a bit smaller hard drive than I wanted. It had a bigger display and a thinner case, with a keyboard that most closely resembled a regular desktop. (One of the aspects of the Toshiba I have always found annoying is its keyboard layout, with the Ins and Del keys where I'd normally have a Ctrl key, and other such irritations.) The HP had a smaller, thicker case, and sturdy construction. However, it has a slower processor and an even smaller hard drive, although it matches my current size. The price difference was substantial, about $270. I also looked at models from Gateway and others.

In the end I chose the Sony. I don't want to have regrets about buying an underpowered system later down the road. The Sony also writes double-layered DVDs, allowing for twice the storage, and in both - and + formats. The price at Best Buy and Amazon were the same, $1499, but the gift certificates I had at Amazon made it much more economical for me to purchase it there. I also avoided sales tax that way, although I paid $27 for two-day shipping.

I should have the new machine by Wednesday. I'll let you know what I think once I have it up and running and my files transferred.

When Hamas Is Just Not Radical Enough

For those who have argued for a Palestinian state as a resolution to Middle East violence, this development should cause some hesitation about the idea of sovereignty on the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The Scotsman reports that al-Qaeda has gained a toehold in Gaza by recruiting disenchanted terrorists from Hamas and Islamic Jihad:

AL-QAEDA has established a foothold in Palestine with a new militant group based in Gaza formed by extremists who have become disillusioned with Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

Amid the biggest flare-up of violence in Gaza since a ceasefire was declared three months ago by Palestinians and Israelis, the Jerusalem Post has quoted unnamed Palestinian Authority security officials as saying that a new group called Jundallah or 'Allah's Brigade' had links to the terrorist organisation headed by Osama bin Laden.

The new terror group consists mainly of former Hamas and Islamic Jihad members who believe these two militant groups have become too moderate. It has close ties to al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran.

Khaled Abu Toameh, a journalist for the Jerusalem Post, Israel's oldest and most respected English-language daily, has interviewed PA officials who said the establishment of Jundallah confirmed suspicions that al-Qaeda was attempting to gain a foothold in Gaza ahead of the planned Israeli withdrawal beginning on August 15.

The Palestinian Authority officially denies that AQ operates within its territories, but the PA has come under tremendous pressure to take action against the terrorists that it has largely ignored until now. Any indication that AQ has taken advantage of the power vacuum of Israeli withdrawal and Palestinian intransigence will put a much different spin on peace negotiations, as far as the US is concerned, and Abbas knows it. Even without AQ sponsorship, the new terror group clearly wants to mimic their priorities:

"Our people will not remain idle in the face of American crimes in Muslim countries," he said. "Soon everyone will see operations [against the US] that will make all the Muslims delighted." He also said Jundallah would not honour any unofficial truce with Israel.

Now we face the possibility of pushing the creation of a pre-failed state, a proto-Taliban in which al-Qaeda freely operates. Why the US should find that in our interest, or in the interest of peace, escapes me completely. The Palestinians themselves have made it clear at the ballot box that they prefer the warlike approach of Hamas over the pseudomoderate approach of Fatah, and now AQ has begun to provide them the war they obviously want against both the US and Israel. Even if Abbas wanted to eject the terrorists, he clearly has shown he cannot, even with the existing Hamas and IJ. He certainly won't have the fortitude to stand up to AQ.

It's time for another approach for Gaza and the West Bank.

Live Blog Of Brewster-Golota Fight

9:56 CT - Fight starts. Looks like both fighters are ready.

9:57 CT - Okay, it looks like only one of them were ready.

I don't think I've ever seen anyone get their butt kicked in 53 seconds before, and I watched Mike Tyson when he still had skills. Andrew Golota never even had a chance to throw a low blow. In fact, HBO says Golota threw 11 punches at Lamon Brewster, but I think at least half of those were just his arms pinwheeling while he hit the canvas three times in less than a minute.

I don't get into boxing the way I did ten or fifteen years ago, but not much else was on TV tonight ... and not much boxing went on tonight either, for that matter.

Russian Oppression Sets Fire To The Caucasus

The London Telegraph has a disturbing report on Russia's increasing police state spinning out of control in the Caucasus, which not only will complicate the war on terror but threatens to create an explosion of terror across the region. Vladimir Putin's security forces have reverted to Soviet-style corruption, brutality, and accountability, leaving little choice for the residents of the southern area of the Russian federation but to fight:

To the West, President Vladimir Putin presents the face of a staunch partner in the war on radical Islam, waging a legitimate fight against extremists in the south of his country.

As evidence of what he is up against he cites the brutal seizure of the school in Beslan last year, the downing of two Russian airliners by Chechen suicide bombers and numerous other attacks that the Kremlin regards as terrorism pure and simple.

But even as he stands shoulder-to-shoulder with western leaders abroad, at home his men are conducting a dirty and brutal war against innocent civilians that, far from combating terrorism, is driving them into the hands of a tiny minority of radicals.

The effect of these policies has been to bring the entire Russian Caucasus to boiling point and create an extremist threat in regions that have no history of militant Islam.

Julian Strauss describes exactly how to turn a counterterrorism effort into a regional disaster. Torture, beatings, and corruption plague the entire area, turning what used to be a mild to moderate problem into a battleground where both sides use terrorism to seize power.

Even more disturbing, and a point which Strauss fails to make, the region in which these forces have been unleashed by Putin border some of the former Soviet states that have tried pulling away from Kremlin influence, especially Georgia. Russian troops have remained in Georgia even after Edvard Scheverdnaze fell in the Rose Revolution, and new President Mikhail Saakashvili wants them removed. Looking at the map, one can see why Putin wants them to remain -- he wants the strategic ability to trap terrorists in the Caucasus, especially to support the Beslan area which sticks out like a salient among the other contested regions along Georgia's border. But the Russian security practices in that area threaten to pull Georgia into the wider conflict that Putin's tactics almost guarantee.

Strauss paints quite a picture of an undisciplined and unaccountable Russian security apparatus in the south:

Nalchik, the capital of the small Muslim-dominated republic of Kabardino-Balkaria and the place where Ruslan was born and raised, was until recently a peaceful provincial backwater.

But now, egged on by a Kremlin that will brook no dissent, local security forces are running amok and terrorising the entire population with impunity. ...

[L]ocal authorities issued a "blacklist" of alleged Islamic militants with nearly 400 names on it. The whole exercise was used as an excuse to settle political scores and extort bribes. One local explained how the list was compiled.

First police were sent to the mosques where they wrote down the names of young men. Then commanders scratched off the names of friends and relatives. Those who had rich parents were approached with a view to extorting bribes to get their names removed.

The remainder were officially proclaimed to be terror suspects.

The Caucasus has transformed into a powder keg, thanks to new neo-Tsarist Russian oppression and police-state tactics. While we've worked to promote moderates in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Russians have, either through incompetence or specific design, driven the moderates from the field in an area just a few hundred miles from our theater of operations. Either Putin and his staff have a poor idea of how to win a terror war, or they have embarked on a deliberate path to destabilize the region as a pretext for reabsorption of former Soviet republics, using Islamofascism as an excuse.

Either explanation should be a warning to the Bush administration, and one I believe they already understand. People wondered why Bush seemed willing to embarass his one-time friend and ally with ostentatious celebrations of freedom in Putin's back yard. The administration wants to send a message to Georgia's neighbors that the US does not support Russian tactics in that region as clearly as possible under the circumstances. We can't afford a complete break with Putin, but we cannot afford for him to set fire to the Caucasus for whatever motivation he has in doing so, either.

NDP, BQ Join In Call For RCMP Investigation

NDP leader Jack Layton has joined with Bloc Quebecois chief Giles Duceppe in calling for an RCMP investigation into potential vote-buying in the case of Gurmant Grewal. Grewal taped two conversations with key Liberal leaders, including PM Paul Martin's chief of staff Tim Murphy, during which Murphy alluded to a future appointment to the Senate for Grewal's wife in exchange for an abstention on Thursday's no-confidence motion:

NDP Leader Jack Layton yesterday joined calls for the RCMP to investigate a taped conversation in which it is alleged that the Prime Minister's chief of staff suggested to an MP that the government would be more free to discuss a possible Senate appointment only after he and his wife, also an MP, abstained on Thursday night's confidence vote.

Mr. Layton backed Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe, who on Thursday wrote the RCMP asking them to investigate the matter. ...

In the conversation, taped Wednesday morning, Mr. Murphy tells Mr. Grewal it is a bad idea to "have any kind of commitment that involves an explicit trade."

Mr. Murphy later suggests that if Mr. Grewal and his wife, Nina Grewal, who is also a British Columbia MP, decide to abstain from confidence votes that could defeat the government, then afterward they could have discussions about whether there might be a Senate appointment, with "some freedom."

"In advance of that, explicit discussions about Senate, not Senate, I don't think are very helpful, and I don't think frankly can be had, in advance of an abstention tomorrow," Mr. Murphy can be heard telling Mr. Grewal on the tape.

"And then we'll have much more detailed and finely hued discussions after that with some freedom."

Complicating the call for an investigation is a sudden reversal from Grewal himself, who now does not want to provide the entire tape to the RCMP. Part of the problem may be that the tape will show that Grewal initiated the conversations, opening up the possibility that he entrapped Murphy and others into their offers. It also could look like Grewal seriously intended on cutting himself a deal and decided against it when a firm offer did not arise, although that doesn't explain why he would surreptitiously tape the conversations of his efforts.

Both Layton and Duceppe have criticized the Conservatives for not releasing the entire tape for scrutiny, and they're correct to do so. If the tape truly does represent a skillful attempt to bribe an MP for a vote, then the entire tape has to be heard for that charge to stand up. If it doesn't, then the Conservatives should make that clear now and put the entire issue to rest quickly. Dragging their heels on the release only makes it look like the Tories have something to hide and builds the credibility of the Liberals and Murphy.

The G&M points out another interesting aspect of this issue that actually should apply elsewhere:

The Criminal Code contains two broadly worded sections that prohibit government officials from offering any kind of benefit for someone's co-operation or influence on government business, and prohibit anyone from soliciting or negotiating an appointment to a government office "in the expectation" of an advantage or benefit.

Doesn't this sound like it should be applied to an investigation of Belinda Stronach's surprise, last-minute appointment to Paul Martin's cabinet in exchange for her abandonment of the Tories on Wednesday?

Strib Has Its Eye On The News

Power Line posted late last night that the local broadsheet, the Star-Tribune, finally noticed that the Governor had invited several Metro-area bloggers to the mansion for a meet-and-greet last Tuesday. Scott and John do a good job of poking holes in the reporting of Mark Brunswick, so I don't necessarily want to cover the same ground, but some aspects of Mark's report are just too good to pass up.

First off, I can confirm what Scott says about having received no contact from Brunswick about this report despite the four days it apparently took him to write it. I display my e-mail address right on my website, just below the Day by Day cartoon now, and I can assure readers that my e-mail service works just fine. (In fact, this morning I've already received three offers from former Nigerian heads of state who need to get millions of dollars out of a bank for a sick relative. I should be rolling in dough by the end of the day!)

Brunswick instead just lifted quotes off of our blogs, which is fine, but then contacted a blogger who didn't get an invitation for his reaction. This part is so unintentionally hilarious, and is presented by Brunswick with so little editorial forethought, that it cries out for special focus:

The owner of Mnleftyliberal accused the local conservative blogs of getting caught up in the heady world of digital age punditry.

"These bloggers are so intent on being the next Powerline, they are willing to jump on it, hiding behind the fact they are not 'real news' or their anonymity," said the owner, who identifies himself only as Trillin.

Scott Johnson and John Hinderaker have written opinion pieces on the pages of the Star Tribune. My name (Edward Morrissey) appears frequently on my site, and the Star Tribune has done two front-page articles about me and my blogging, complete with pictures, the last in conjunction with the Canadian political scandals and my coverage of them. The rest of the bloggers at the mansion all identify themselves by name on their blogs, except for the Fraters gang, who don't go out of their way to hide their names, either. Instead of doing some research and pointing this out in his reporting, Brunswick lets the snide remark by someone "who identifies himself only as Trillin" stand unchallenged.

Irony, as you may guess, escapes Strib reporters and editors alike.

As for us all wanting to be the next Power Line, well, I'd say we wouldn't mind Power Line's traffic. I think most of us are pretty comfortable with who we are and how we blog, and if Brunswick had bothered to contact us, we could have explained our approach to both our blogs and to our visit with the Governor. Instead, he chose to take the lazy way out and wound up making himself look rather foolish.

I did get mentioned in his article, and the reference made to me I felt was perfectly legitimate. However, it does give me an opportunity to respond to another Strib representative, Nick Coleman. Brunswick quoted me about Pawlenty's chances on the national stage in 2008:

Captain Ed at the blog Captain's Quarters was among many who commented favorably on Pawlenty's potential as a candidate for national office.

"If you like to handicap presidential primary candidates, I'd suggest including Tim Pawlenty in your calculations," he posted afterward, remarking as well about being struck by Pawlenty's "youth and fitness."

That last part apparently set Nick into a tizzy of titillation earlier this week on his local Air America radio show. A few people who listened -- which I assume was Nick's entire audience -- tells me that Nick concluded that I must be gay based on my report. Nick's keen sense of reporting must have missed the picture that appeared practically in the middle of that same paragraph that shows my wife and I standing with the Governor, and given that Nick has never met nor even spoken with me, the evidence for this conclusion seems rather thin. It does, however, exemplify the journalistic standards employed by the Star Tribune and at least some of its staff.

If I was gay, I'd have no problem talking about it, but I'm not. I find Coleman's attack on me based on a spurious notion of my sexuality somewhat amusing and revealing of Nick and the Left more than it says anything about me. The Left wants people to think that they are more tolerant than anyone about sexual preferences, but when they attack liberatarians and conservatives, they love to accuse us of being closeted gays and lesbians. Nick does this quite often, especially when criticizing the guys from Power Line, a tendency that never fails to send the Northern Alliance into gales of laughter. We'd all like to know why Nick seems so interested in our sexuality. Maybe someone could drop us a line to explain his, er, curiosity.

Finally, Brunswick did report something new at the end of his article. The press interest in the event caused some question about whether the evening's costs should be borne by Minnesota taxpayers -- all $200 of it -- and the Governor wound up reimbursing the state out of his own pocket. I find that ridiculous, not the least that all four Fraters guys attended and the bar bill came in that low. If we had been local reporters for newspapers and television stations invited for a similar event, no one would have questioned its cost.

In return for the Governor's personal generosity, I'd like to return the favor on behalf of all those who attended on Tuesday evening. Governor, if you read this, we'd like to invite you to a reception hosted by the local blogging community for Governors who get the new media, their wives, and their staff. It's at John Hinderaker's house, and it's on us. I'll let John know about it as soon as the RSVPs start rolling in...

CQ On The Air Tonight

I just completed a taped interview with Rob Breakenridge at Corus Radio Network about a wide range of political topics, American and Canadian. The program, The World Tonight, airs on Canadian radio at 9:30 PM EDT. For those who don't live in Alberta, you can catch the interview on the live stream at CHRQ's website at the above link. Rob had some great questions for me about the judicial filibusters, John Bolton, and the collapse of the no-confidence effort in Ottawa. Hope you enjoy it as much as I did!

ADDENDUM: Before you listen to my interview, don't forget to catch Michelle Malkin filling in for Bill O'Reilly on The Factor tonight on Fox News Channel.

Democrats Dissatisfied With Dean

USA Today picks up on a building realization in political circles that Howard Dean may not have been the best choice to represent Democrats as the party tries to find some appeal to centrists. Jill Lawrence uses the same contrast as I did earlier this week between Dean and his GOP counterpart, Ken Mehlman, to plumb Democratic dissatisfaction with the Vermont governor's first 100 days on the job:

Mehlman, chairman of the Republican National Committee, is courting black and Hispanic voters on a regular basis. Beyond the usual run of speeches, fundraisers and meetings with donors, he has visited Latino neighborhoods and historically black campuses. He has attended black-oriented receptions and ceremonies, spoken to minority chambers of commerce and raised money for Otto Banks of Harrisburg, Pa., a black city council candidate new to the GOP.

Dean, who reaches Day 100 as Democratic National Committee chairman Monday, is for the most part speaking to diehard Democrats who are the backbone of their party. He's addressed Democrats in nine states dominated by Republicans, such as Kansas and Mississippi, and in party strongholds such as California and Massachusetts. He's spoken to labor unions, gay-rights groups and state party chairs — all pillars of the party.

Some Democrats are frustrated by the contrast between the two approaches, even as they praise Dean's efforts to revitalize flagging state parties. "Democrats should be stirring things up, roiling the waters on (the GOP) side the way Mehlman is on ours. He's playing in our sandbox," says Steve Rosenthal, CEO of America Coming Together, a group formed to energize and turn out Democratic voters.

Will Marshall, president of the centrist Progressive Policy Institute, agrees that Democrats need to "go raiding behind Republican lines." He says his group and the affiliated Democratic Leadership Council will be doing "some missionary work of our own" in Republican states this year.

Even more disturbing to Democrats has been Dean's lack of message discipline. In a period when stemwinders should be placed in mothballs in favor of positive focus on party priorities, Dean instead has gone out of his way to generate headline-grabbing soundbites that result in embarassment for the DNC. They selected Dean for his enthusiastic Leftist following and his earlier ability during his Vermont career to build a consensus in the center. However, he's given little evidence of that ability, or even that desire, as he moves across the country:

Dean is offering Democrats his trademark red-meat rhetoric along with guidance on outreach. In speeches covered locally, he has called Republicans "corrupt," "brain-dead" and "mean." "They are not nice people," he said last month in a radio interview on Air America Minnesota, according to the political newsletter Hotline. Last weekend he said House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, whose associates are under investigation but who has not been charged with anything, should go home to Houston to "serve his jail sentence" at Texas expense.

At the same time, Dean tells Democrats they need to "respect people in all 50 states" and try to win them over. "We need to talk to people from our hearts," he told California Democrats. He said Democrats should "say what our values are" and "inform Americans about what we believe instead of letting the other party do it."

He should be heeding his own advice. Howard Kurtz noticed that the left wing of the blogosphere has quit jumping to Dean's defense, and even links to Blue State, which would like someone to turn down Howard's "loud". (Howard Kurtz also links to CQ in the same column regarding his attacks on Tom DeLay.) Dean hasn't just failed to appeal to the center, he's beginning to lose the trust of the committed base. These are the same mistakes he made over and over again during the primary, and when challenged he falls apart, usually on camera as he did with Al Sharpton during the Iowa debate.

Dean faces Tim Russert on Sunday morning, which has to be a make-or-break point in his new job. If he can't explain his rhetoric away and shift back to party-building with the high-profile but likely sympathetic Russert, Dean may soon find himself back on the bike paths of Vermont. The Democrats cannot afford to have Mehlman eat away at their base while Dean antagonizes the centrists, and players like Rosenthal and Marshall know it.

UPDATE: Mad How's still at it:

Democratic Party chairman Howard Dean, who famously refused to prejudge Osama bin Laden's guilt, is standing by his judgment that House Majority Leader Tom DeLay may deserve jail time for allegations of corruption.

"Tom DeLay is corrupt. No question about it," Dean said Friday. "This is a guy who shouldn't be in Congress and maybe ought to be serving in jail."

What's Dean up to -- building his campaign for Travis County DA?

Santorum Apologizes For Nazi Analogy

Senator Rick Santorum apologized for his remarks during the Senate debate yesterday that used Adolf Hitler as part of an analogy about Democratic insistence on using the filibuster for judicial confirmations. He said he "meant no offense" by bringing up the most notorious genocidal maniac in history:

"Referencing Hitler was meant to dramatize the principle of an argument, not to characterize my Democratic colleagues," Santorum, the No. 3 Republican in the GOP leadership in the Senate, said of his remarks Thursday. ...

Santorum said that Democratic protests over Republican efforts to ensure confirmation votes would be like the Nazi dictator seizing Paris and then saying: "I'm in Paris. How dare you invade me? How dare you bomb my city? It's mine."

Santorum later said in a release that his remark "was a mistake and I meant no offense."

The Republican Jewish Coalition applauded the statement. "Sen. Santorum is sensitive to the effect of his words and the inappropriateness of the analogy," Executive Director Matthew Brooks said.

Let's propose a parallel rule in the Senate, shall we? The next time someone uses Hitler or Nazis to construct an analogy or comparison to American politics during a Senate debate, his or her party loses an hour of floor time. Right now we're even between Robert Godwin Byrd and Rick Godwin Santorum, meaning that we have now restored the all-important balance of stupidity between the parties just as our Founding Fathers intended.

If any Senator feels the need to try to pervert that balance, the end result will be that we have to hear even less idiocy from the World's Greatest Deliberative Body^TM. Everybody wins!

Blood And Politics, Part Two

After my post this morning on Terry Moran and his brother Rick at Right Wing Nuthouse, I received this e-mail from CQ reader Adam S:

Absolutely. So is the blood of my loved ones in the armed forces being spilled in Iraq. Terry Moran and others like him in the media that do there best to destroy our military are a disgrace. So disgraceful that only a blood relative could stand up for them. So I guess by posting this you are saying that Terry and the MSM are all great Americans and all that nonsense in the blogsphere is bull? Where do you stand?

Where do I stand? I think my posts on the subjects of the military, foreign policy, and the war in Iraq speak for themselves. I fully support this administration's strategy and implementation of the war on terror, and I think that the media has engaged in egregious ankle-biting for the past three years on this subject. My goodness, we lost more men in the Kasserine Pass in our first battle against the Germans in World War II than we have in Iraq, and we've liberated 50 million people and provided them free elections to replace two of the world's most brutal tyrannies. Can you imagine this press corps reporting on WWII instead? We'd have celebrities on talk shows every evening screaming that the Germans never attacked us, we're going after the wrong enemy, that taking out Hitler would leave a power vacuum in Central Europe that would destabilize the entire Mediterranean region, and so on. Janeane Garofalo would predict that our armies were doomed, doomed! the moment they set foot in North Africa. Robert Byrd would stand in the well of the Senate and say, "Where's Hirohito?" (Hell, maybe he did -- he's almost old enough.)

However, that isn't Terry Moran's fault, and none of it is Rick's fault. Bitching at Rick and expecting him to crucify his brother on his blog is terribly unfair. Terry and the rest of the White House press corps got unnecessarily strident and argumentative with Scott McClelland this week about the Newsweek story, laughably so because they started the entire argument themselves by asking the press secretary what he thought Newsweek should do about the situation. That doesn't make Terry responsible for the anti-military bias in the media -- and furthermore, Terry at least owns up to that bias and says it has to change. My guess is that his bosses at ABC had a choking fit when they heard that quote.

Adam, I agree with you that American blood on the sands of Southwest Asia should be thicker than politics, but war is politics by other means no matter how it cuts. What's changed is the unity of purpose that used to exist among our parents and grandparents that supported our men and women overseas in battle and gave them the benefit of the doubt when questions arose about the conduct of war. After Kasserine, the military changed commanders and put George Patton in charge. In each of the substantiated cases of abuse in this war, the publicity of the charges came after the military had already taken steps to prosecute those involved and prevent recurrences. Instead of reporting that, the media has decided to play these incidents up as sensationally as possible despite full knowledge of the damage it could do, even to the point of running stories with no substantiation or even plausibility, as Newsweek did.

Is Terry Moran part of that media establishment? Yes, he is. But that doesn't mean that Terry invented or even participates in these media abuses, and even if it did, Rick's hardly responsible for it. Judge Terry on Terry's performance, and allow Rick to abstain from kneecapping his own brother. As I said earlier, Terry appears to be a stand-up guy, after having listened to his interview with Hugh, and we should encourage those people to continue their engagement with the public. We should save our ire for those who violate our trust: the Whitakers, the Isikoffs, the Eason Jordans, Dan Rathers, Mary Mapeses, and their ilk.

The Byrd Option Is About To Take Wing

Bill Frist will take another step towards invoking the Byrd Option of getting a ruling that filibusters are out of order on judicial nominees this morning, when he introduces a motion for cloture on the confirmation debate for Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen:

This morning, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist will take an official step to proceed toward a vote on Owen's nomination, starting the clock ticking toward a showdown over whether Democrats will retain their right to block judicial nominees with the filibuster.

Shortly after the Senate convenes this morning, Frist, R-Tenn., will file a cloture petition, which requires the approval of 60 of 100 senators, to end debate on Owen's nomination. Last session, Democrats blocked Owen and nine other appellate court nominees. He has renominated seven of them this year.

Under Senate rules that petition must "ripen" for two days while the Senate is in session -- today and Monday -- before a vote.

If five Democrats do not join with the Senate's 55 Republicans to give Frist the 60 votes he needs to proceed to an up-or-down vote for Owen, Frist plans to carry through his threat to lower the threshold needed to cut off judicial filibusters from 60 to 51. That vote -- known alternately as the 'nuclear' or 'constitutional' option -- is likely to occur on Tuesday.

That timing should not surprise anyone. On Tuesdays, the Vice President traditionally sits in and performs his duties as President of the Senate, meaning that Dick Cheney will make the interpretation of the rule that Frist's motion challenges. That gives the Republicans a tie-breaking vote, if necessary, in order to carry the interpretation into precedent. The description by the Post-Gazette is somewhat incorrect in this regard, in that what Frist's motion does isn't to lower the vote bar for filibusters but make filibusters on judicial confirmations out of order entirely.

This means two things. Frist now has the votes to carry this motion, and he has given up hope on a compromise that will satisfy the need for up-or-down votes on all nominees who make it out of committee. Reid knows this, too, which is why he gave the Senate a taste of the obstructionism he has used as an extortionate threat against the Byrd Option. By Tuesday afternoon, the debate on Owen will likely come to a screeching halt and she will be confirmed, followed quickly by the rest of the embargoed nominees.

Expect to hear a lot about compromises over the weekend, though. Don't be surprised on Tuesday if the cloture motion passes for Owen and then again later for Brown. The Democrats really only have time as their ally if they can put off Frist's motion -- and the only way for them to do that now is to start confirming Bush's nominees. They can save the filibuster on judicial nominations now only by not using it, a position that their earlier indiscriminate use has forced onto them.

Is Harper Finished?

In the aftermath of the failed Tory bid to unseat the Liberals and Paul Martin, the pundits will start analyzing the failure in light of the seemingly unbeatable revelations that have come out from the Gomery Inquiry. As party leader, Stephen Harper bears the ultimate responsibility for the strategy of this no-confidence effort and its execution, as the G&M's Brian Laghi reminds readers this morning:

The man who prides himself on his skill as a political tactician lost the biggest gamble of his political career last night. And, at least according to some, it didn't need to be that way.

After his defeat on a vote designed to force a spring election, Conservative Leader Stephen Harper finds himself today with a chunk of his political capital spent, a temperamental image with the Canadian public, and some members of his party sniping at him for what they believe was the frittering away of the massive advantage given to him by the sponsorship scandal. ...

Tories and other observers call the loss of former leadership foe Belinda Stronach to the Liberals the ultimate mistake. But Mr. Harper was also blamed for taking the heat off the Liberals by bringing controversy on himself. And, ultimately, he miscalculated that independent MP Chuck Cadman, an old Reformer like him, would hold fast to the views of his constituents when voting on whether to keep the government alive.

Without a doubt, Harper failed to take his case to the public, perhaps overestimating the impact of the Gomery testimony on the electorate, which seemed somewhat apathetic after an initial blush of outrage. He may have been hurt by trying to stoke those embers of outrage by overindulging in it publicly, hoping to lead a popular groundswell of disgust that would block Martin from allying with any other factions in Parliament. That backfired, as Laghi notes, as the Canadian voters (and the Liberals, of course) made Harper the issue instead of the massive corruption that Liberals used to attain and maintain power. He might have been better served by underplaying the outrage and sticking with a more somber and reluctant tone of performing an honorable but unpleasant duty of restoring dignity to Canadian rule.

Laghi's other criticisms of Harper's personal touch seem consistent with what I've read about his approach, although I'm in no position to know. What is apparent is that the only MP to cross the aisle was Belinda Stronach despite the many temptations and outright bribes offered by Martin and the Liberals, and more critically, no one abstained from the confidence vote. That seems to argue in Harper's favor, and in Belinda's case, one can understand why Harper was disinclined to personally intervene. First, her initial entry into politics last year was an attempt to keep him from becoming party leader, a rather presumptious effort from a political novice. Second, Harper probably felt that since she and deputy leader Peter MacKay had an ongoing intimate personal relationship, he didn't need to "jolly her along" too much, or that that task belonged to MacKay.

Laghi goes after the right man for the wrong reasons, for the most part. Harper made some odd decisions in this fight, and all played against him. Telling people that this vote was an all-or-nothing one-shot deal was his biggest mistake. In light of the corruption already exposed in Ottawa, Harper should have instead made clear that he will not stop until the Liberals were kicked out. He made the decision to drop his challenge to the earlier motions which should have qualified as no-confidence votes for no return whatsoever, a decision which legitimized yesterday's vote. Harper also failed to come to terms with Canadian ambivalence about his own political image; since he was in effect running for PM, he needed to make his case more publicly for that position. A slew of polls resulted in some contradictory numbers but showed a trend swinging back to the Liberals, driven mostly by a distrust of his leadership, and that needed immediate addressing.

Lastly, though, Harper may have been undone by his own basic honesty. During this entire episode, Harper made clear what he wanted to do and was aboveboard in his efforts to topple the Liberals. Harper clearly underestimated Martin and overestimated the man's ethics. Harper appeared unprepared for the garage sale that Martin kicked off, buying the NDP with a budget package and Stronach with a second-tier ministerial position. Anyone who paid attention to the Gomery Inquiry should have known better, but even I was pretty amazed at how baldly Martin and his cohorts sold out Canada just to squeeze past the no-confidence vote.

Harper may or may not survive this lost gamble. The real losers from a historical standpoint will be those who literally stood to keep in power a party that has so corrupted Canadian politics that it's impossible now to know whether their power has ever been legitimate.

UPDATE: Welcome, Instapundit readers! CQ readers have a terrific debate about the collapse of the Tory challenge going on in the comments of this post.

Blood Is Thicker Than Politics

After a round of criticism of Terry Moran of ABC News in the blogosphere for his part in White House briefing controversy, the veteran reporter engaged in an excellent if somewhat contentious on-air interview on Hugh Hewitt's radio program. In the course of the interview, Moran made two startling admissions. The first was that the media does have a reflexive anti-military bias:

There is, Hugh, I agree with you, a deep anti-military bias in the media. One that begins from the premise that the military must be lying, and that American projection of power around the world must be wrong. I think that that is a hangover from Vietnam, and I think it's very dangerous. That's different from the media doing it's job of challenging the exercise of power without fear or favor.

The second was that his brother runs the excellent blog Right Wing Nuthouse, who apparently got swamped for comment after the ABC reporter divulged this on air. Some of the e-mailers seem to have wanted Rick to take a pound of his brother's flesh on line and display it as a trophy. Rick's response is, I think, a reminder to us all that politics does not have to be a blood sport:

First of all, thank you for your emails and comments. Feedback like this is what separates blogs from the Mainstream Press. However, those expecting me to criticize or even critique what my brother does for ABC news will be disappointed.

I happen to know that, despite what you might think, my brother is a loyal American who loves this country as much as I do. Only good things can flow from that. His job is to ask questions of people in power. Only good things can flow from that. And if it upsets you about the way he does his job, don’t come to this site or email me. ...

In a family of 10 children (9 of whom are more liberal than I am) you can imagine some of the dinner table discussions – especially when we were coming of age in the 1970’s. But whatever knock-down, drag-em-out fights that ensued we never lost our love and respect for each other. Blood is thicker than politics. Don’t believe me? Try coming here and dissing my brother…you’ll get an earful back.

Amen, brother (figuratively speaking). And let's give Terry some credit -- he agreed to do Hugh's interview when he knew he would get challenged about that briefing, and remained remarkably open and honest, even if he did get a bit petty once when he misunderstood what Hugh meant about a criticism of White House correspondents in general. He also agreed to extend the interview twice on air despite other pressing commitments so he could talk directly to Hugh's callers. Even if I had a problem with Terry's reporting, it's clear he's a stand-up guy.

So is his brother Rick. Blood is and should be thicker than politics. Rick just gave us all a timely reminder of priorities. (via Michelle Malkin)

'Not One Dime' On MS-NBC

Ian at the Political Teen has video of MS-NBC's Connected Coast to Coast, where the Not One Dime post I wrote yesterday (not today, Tony!) got major airplay. The segment was, I think, very fair and deliberately balanced and worth the download time even if you're on dial-up.

Ornery, one of the blogs featured on the segment, posed this scenario for its readers: President Hillary Clinton and a Democratic Senate majority in 2009. My answer to that will be the same as it would have been for 214 years -- if that's what the voters want, then they will get the judicial confirmations that match. It's really that simple, and it always has been.

To answer one last question posed by an e-mailer after the segment aired, even if MS-NBC considers me a stalwart conservative, I consider myself center-right. I don't oppose gay marriage, although I don't exactly support it either, and I don't support the death penalty at all, for anything. I believe in a strong defense and erring on the side of personal freedoms whenever possible, as opposed to government control. Fiscally and internationally, I'm rock-solid conservative, and I think I'm less so socially. I believe that judges should stick to applying the laws passed by the legislature and quit developing laws on their own accord. But for an overall description, conservative works for me.

Liberals Survive No-Confidence Effort

CTV reports that independent MP David Kilgour has announced his intention to vote with the Conservatives in opposing C-48, the budget amendment and the confidence motion that could collapse the Liberal government:

The combined votes of all Liberal and NDP MPs, as well as Independent MP Carolyn Parrish, adds up to 152 -- the same number as the Conservatives and Bloc Quebecois.

That leaves Independent MPs David Kilgour and Chuck Cadman to swing the result.

Just hours before the vote, Kilgour pledged publicly to vote for the budget, but against the additional spending package. Cadman, however, is still holding his cards very close to his chest.

Watch for abstentions. Those wild cards will come out, if they exist, for the C-48 vote and may well determine who outfought whom in this political battle. If only Cadman abstains, Martin loses.

UPDATE: C-48 vote just complete -- Cadman voted with the Liberals. The Liberals just survived the no-confidence vote.

UPDATE II: Went to the Speaker on a 152-152 tie, and the Speaker as expected voted to support the government, relying as he said on "tradition".

Saddam Protected Zarqawi: Jordan

The UPI reports today that King Abdullah of Jordan told a Saudi newspaper that Jordan wanted Abu Musab al-Zarqawi extradited to Amman prior to Saddam Hussein's removal by US forces. Saddam refused to extradite the terrorist mastermind, providing him sanctuary instead (courtesy of Laurie Mylroie):

Jordan's King Abdullah revealed Thursday that Iraq's former Baath regime had refused to deport Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, blamed for ongoing terrorism in Iraq.

Speaking in an interview with Saudi daily al-Hayat, Abdullah said Zarqawi, a Jordanian, is well entrenched in Iraq and that "he and terrorists like him thrive in such places where security and stability are non-existent." ...

"Since Zarqawi entered Iraq before the fall of the former regime we have been trying to have him deported back to Jordan for trial, but our efforts were in vain," Abdullah added.

One of the arguments that anti-war protestors have made against George Bush was that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with terrorism before we declared war on him in 2003. King Abdullah's information should finally put that canard to rest, although in truth anyone who bothered to read The Connection by Stephen Hayes already knew better. Now we have confirmation from the Jordanian government that Zarqawi had been sheltered by the Ba'athists of Baghdad well before American troops invaded in March 2003, and that Saddam knew Zarqawi was a terrorist.

Now the inevitable question: how much play do you think this will get in the Exempt Media?

Howard Dean's Personal Prosecutor?

With Democratic National Committee chair Howard Dean calling for Tom DeLay's immediate imprisonment despite a lack of a conviction or even indictment, one wonders how he can feel so confident about getting either one. Perhaps it helps when the Democrats have their own in-house district attorney with apparently no concern over any appearance of conflict of interest. The Houston Chronicle reports today that the supposedly non-partisan Travis County DA investigating charges of corruption among DeLay's staff spent last week fund-raising for the Democratic Party:

Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle, who denies partisan motives for his investigation of a political group founded by Republican leader Tom DeLay, was the featured speaker last week at a Democratic fund-raiser where he spoke directly about the congressman.

A newly formed Democratic political action committee, Texas Values in Action Coalition, hosted the May 12 event in Dallas to raise campaign money to take control of the state Legislature from the GOP, organizers said.

Earle, an elected Democrat, helped generate $102,000 for the organization.

In his remarks, Earle likened DeLay to a bully and spoke about political corruption and the investigation involving DeLay, the House majority leader from Sugar Land, according to a transcript supplied by Earle.

It seems like a breach of prosecutorial ethics for a district attorney to be discussing a potential witness or target in an investigation in public in any environment. It speaks to a pre-existing bias that should result in the disqualification of Earle and/or any indictment he files. However, using that rhetoric to raise money for a political party while investigations are ongoing not only strikes me as unethical but potentially actionable for Earle's status at the Bar.

In the ABA's Canon of Ethics, they make clear that attorneys should operate on behalf of their clients, "free of compromising influences and loyalties [EC 5-1]." As Earle represents the people of Travis County, his bald partisanship certainly creates the impression that his actions on their behalf intend to benefit the Democratic Party above the interests of Travis County residents. More to the point might be DR7-107 concerning trial publicity, which reads:

(A) A lawyer participating in or associated with the investigation of a criminal matter shall not make or participate in making an extrajudicial statement that a reasonable person would expect to be disseminated by means of public communication and that does more than state without elaboration:

(1) Information contained in a public record.

(2) That the investigation is in progress.

(3) The general scope of the investigation including a description of the offense and, if permitted by law, the identity of the victim.

(4) A request for assistance in apprehending a suspect or assistance in other matters and the information necessary thereto.

(5) A warning to the public of any dangers.

(B) A lawyer or law firm associated with the prosecution or defense of a criminal matter shall not, from the time of the filing of a complaint, information, or indictment, the issuance of an arrest warrant, or arrest until the commencement of the trial or disposition without trial, make or participate in making an extrajudicial statement that a reasonable person would expect to be disseminated by means of public communication and that relates to:

(1) The character, reputation, or prior criminal record (including arrests, indictments, or other charges of crime) of the accused.

(2) The possibility of a plea of guilty to the offense charged or to a lesser offense.

(3) The existence or contents of any confession, admission, or statement given by the accused or his refusal or failure to make a statement.

(4) The performance or results of any examinations or tests or the refusal or failure of the accused to submit to examinations or tests.

(5) The identity, testimony, or credibility of a prospective witness.

(6) Any opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the accused, the evidence, or the merits of the case.

Clearly, Earle has violated DR7-107(A) as well as (B)(1). He also has clearly violated EC8-8, which states that lawyers who serve as public officers "should not engage in activities in which his personal or professional interests are or foreseeably may be in conflict with his official duties."

Earle has made clear that his "investigation" of Tom DeLay is nothing more than a partisan fishing expedition meant to give rhetorical cover to Howard Dean and the rest of the Democratic Party leadership who fear DeLay's political skills. DeLay might have broken the law in Texas, but anything Earle turns up will necessarily be completely tainted by his naked partisanship in using his ongoing investigation for party fundraising speeches. The only investigation in which Earle should be involved is an ABA review of his Texas law license.

Linda Foley Channeling Eason Jordan

Perhaps in an era where mainstream journalists appear to be embracing the "fake but accurate" standard for publication stories like this should not surprise us, but one would think that key figures in the communication industry would be more careful in how they express themselves. The latest outbreak of unsubstantiated allegations against the US military comes from Linda Foley, the president of the Newspaper Guild and the Communication Workers of America. According to WorldNet Daily and a video at Say Anything, Foley has dug up the hoary Eason Jordan urban legend of American assassinations of journalists in Iraq:

According to a tape of her remarks, Foley said: "Journalists, by the way, are not just being targeted verbally or … ah, or … ah, politically. They are also being targeted for real, um … in places like Iraq. What outrages me as a representative of journalists is that there's not more outrage about the number, and the brutality, and the cavalier nature of the U.S. military toward the killing of journalists in Iraq."

Foley continued, "They target and kill journalists … uh, from other countries, particularly Arab countries like Al -, like Arab news services like al-Jazeera, for example. They actually target them and blow up their studios with impunity. ..."

If the journalists who make these claims have evidence to support them, they have unique mechanisms available to them to produce it to the world. They work for newspapers and broadcast networks, in case they've forgotten. Just as with Eason Jordan this winter and with Newsweek this month, however, it's easier to just pander to the anti-American sentiment around the world and toss around allegations with no substantiation whatsoever.

Foley should either present her evidence or resign her position. She's not as important as Eason Jordan or Mark Whitaker, but she's a symptom of a larger disease in American journalism. The threshold of publication for allegations has been lowered past "single sourced" to "sounds like it could be true", especially when it comes to covering the American military. It's time that the public demanded that the media perform to higher standards than the Rona Barrett model. (h/t: USS Neverdock)

Volcker Commission Burned Confidential Witness

Roger L. Simon has a letter from the counsel for a Oil-For-Food witness that had been promised anonymity, but found out that he had been exposed as a source of information for the Volcker Commission. The letter from Pierre Mouselli's attorney, Adrian Gonzales Maltes, includes a statement from whistleblower Robert Parton explicitly stating that the Volcker Commission leaked this information without his knowledge, an astounding development since Mouselli was Parton's witness and Parton negotiated Mouselli's cooperation personally:

"As to the one individual with whom I worked who had such [identity] protection, and from whom I had obtained evidence concerning conversations with the Secretary General, the IIC violated his Confidentiality Agreement during the course of the investigation. Without my knowledge or that of the witness, and in violation of the Confidentiality Agreement, members of the Committee provided the name of the witness -- and the substance of his statements -- to the Secretary General and his counsel during the investigation ..."

Someone in the Volcker Commission has leaked information to Kofi Annan, including the names of witnesses and their testimony. Small wonder that Parton resigned in disgust, preferring to deal with the independent investigations Congress conducts instead of the Annan-appointed (and accountable) Paul Volcker.

This just provides more evidence that the UN has become so thoroughly corrupted that internal investigations will do no good whatsoever; Annan has his thumbs in everything. He will not allow people to reveal the depth of corruption at Turtle Bay and his personal involvement in it without serious attempts at intimidation. The call he made to Mouselli on a private cell-phone number given only to the Volcker Commission to discuss his supposedly confidential testimony served as a warning to Mouselli and everyone else to observe the UN version of omerta, or else.

Roger promises to post any responses he receives from Volcker or his spokespeople. Keep checking back there for updates.

Confidence Votes Come Down To The Wire

With the two budget motions tabled today with the potential for a no-confidence result that could collapse the government -- in the middle of a royal visit from Queen Elizabeth II -- the developments in attendance and last-minute maneuverings have been dizzying. Last night's allegations of vote-buying by Tory MP Gurmant Grewal appeared to mirror those made earlier by MP Inky Marks, only this time Grewal made a tape of the conversation and named Tim Murphy, Paul Martin's chief of staff, as the initiator of the offer. Politics Watch reviewed the tape (available here from CTV), and Romeo St. Martin reports that Murphy used extreme caution in approaching Grewal:

At no time during the tape does Murphy make an explicit offer to Grewal, and he carefully chooses his words and speaks about hypothetical situations.

The tape suggests that Murphy is more interested in Grewal abstaining than having the MP crossover to the Liberal side.

Murphy also says that it is a "bad idea" to "have any kind of commitment that involves an explicit trade."

However, Murphy tells Grewal that there are "other members of your current caucus who are facing the same dilemna that you face," suggesting the Liberals have been talking to other Tories who may be considering crossing the floor or abstaining. ...

On the tape, Murphy proposes the concept of Grewal abstaining from the vote and using the following excuse, which sounds eerily familiar.

"That can be done on the basis, those members can do it on the basis, 'Well look, my riding doesn't want an election, doesn't want one now. Thinks it's the wrong time to do it.'" ...

On the tape, Murphy proposes the concept of Grewal abstaining from the vote and using the following excuse, which sounds eerily familiar.

"That can be done on the basis, those members can do it on the basis, 'Well look, my riding doesn't want an election, doesn't want one now. Thinks it's the wrong time to do it.'"

In other words, what Murphy wanted from Grewal was an abstention on the budget motions today, in exchange for consideration of quid pro quo at a later date. Perhaps Murphy had already anticipated the bad press Stronach's crossover would produce and its potential backlash among the critical independent MPs who hold the vote in balance. He may well be mindful of the problems within his own caucus if the sudden promotion of Tory MPs to lucrative appointmenst left some Grits understandably resentful and questioning of the career pathing these payoffs represent. (It looks like the best way to advance in the Liberal Party is to be a Conservative at budget time, these days.)

Stephen Harper has a problem, if one listens between the lines of this tape. Murphy might have three or four abstentions in his pocket for today's votes without Harper's knowledge. However, in a late development this morning, the second Liberal MP in a day has taken ill and may miss the survival votes Martin needs:

Independent MP Carolyn Parrish is in pain but will make the vote 'if she has to crawl,' a spokesman said Thursday.

Brian MacDonald, a spokesman at her Mississauga constituency office, said Ms. Parrish is in Ottawa and, although she is in pain, plans to attend the Thursday's crucial budget vote.

"You can quote me on this, she says she will make the vote if she has to crawl," Mr. MacDonald said.

Concern had emerged about Ms. Parrish's health after she told Canada AM early Thursday that she was ill, throwing doubt on her ability to make it to the House.

Canada feels Ms. Parrish's pain, waiting as they are for a resolution to the political crisis facing them in an almost-stalemated Parliament. The only prediction anyone can make now is that more potential vote-skewing developments will almost certainly occur between now and the vote.

US Reached Out To NoKo At UN

In an attempt to jump-start multilateral negotiations with North Korea, the US used low-level direct contacts with the Kim regime through the United Nations, according to an anonymous US embassy official. According to the Boston Globe and an AP report in USA Today, nothing substantial about nonproliferation was discussed, but assurances were given to the Kim regime on sovereignty and security:

U.S. officials met with North Korean officials in New York last week to discuss American policy toward the Stalinist state, a U.S. Embassy official in Tokyo said Thursday.

"We can confirm that we had working-level contact with North Korean officials on Friday, May 13, in New York," an embassy official said. "This channel is used to convey messages about U.S. policy, not to negotiate." ...

A report in Japan's Asahi newspaper on Thursday said senior U.S. State Department officials told North Korean officials on Friday that Washington recognizes the North as a sovereign nation under the leadership of Kim Jong Il.

The U.S. officials also told the North Korean side that the administration of President Bush does not intend to attack North Korea, the Asahi said.

The report said the meeting took place at North Korea's representative office at the United Nations.

The Boston Globe reported in its Thursday edition that the meeting was attended by Joseph DiTrani, the U.S. special envoy to the six-nation nuclear talks, and Jim Foster, the head of the State Department's Office of Korean Affairs.

Interesting. The Bush administration appears to have arranged this meeting after a long policy of refusing any direct bilateral contact with North Korea over nuclear disarmament, a policy that frustrated some in the State Department. The Kim regime dug in its heels, however, saying it would not return to the bargaining table without some kind of security assurances from the US about its continued sovereignty and existence. It looks like Bush has reconsidered, at least long enough to toss the dice with Pyongyang to see if that approach will break the impasse.

Perhaps it will work, although Kim is a master manipulator. It wouldn't surprise anyone if he found another pretext for delaying multilateral talks, having received what he demanded at Turtle Bay. If it fails to bring Kim back to the table, Bush can demonstrate that he made the attempt to use all of the options available to satisfy Pyongyang of US good faith. More likely, though, Kim will exploit this as a precedent to refuse any multilateral negotiations in the future.

Tory MP: Liberals Tried To Bribe Me

Another Conservative MP has gone public with allegations that the Liberal Party has attempted to bribe Tories with ministerial positions or Senate seats to buy votes on the upcoming confidence motion in tomorrow's session. Following the public outing by Inky Marks and the scandalous betrayal by Belinda Stronach, Gurmant Grewal came forward this evening to reveal that the Grits had offered a Senate seat for his wife and a Liberal sinecure to keep him from voting No on the budget:

The Surrey, B.C. MP, whose wife Nina is also a Tory MP, alleges he made an audio recording of the offer from Liberal cabinet minister Ujjal Dosanjh and Tim Murphy, Prime Minister Paul Martin's chief of staff.

The allegation comes a day after Belinda Stronach shocked her Tory caucus colleagues by jumping to the Liberal cabinet.

Mr. Martin insisted the move was Ms. Stronach's initiative and that the Liberals were not actively attempting to poach from Conservative ranks.

Unlike Inky Marks, Grewal didn't hesitate to name names, and the effort comes right from the Prime Minister's office. If he really does have the offer on tape from Murphy, the PM should have some explaining to do to the RCMP. Rarely has North American politics so overtly involved the purchasing of votes through crass promises of personal gain.

If the Liberals have conspired to sell off ministerial positions for patronage, they better hope the effort pays off tomorrow. If they lose control of Parliament and face new elections this summer, a number of them may not return -- and a new government might be inclined to find out what other kinds of bribes (and perhaps threats) the Martin regime has employed. Stronach in particular will have a lot of explaining to do to her riding, but Martin may find himself at the center of a new criminal investigation into government corruption.

Hopefully, the tape will get some airplay later tonight.

Dems Start Retribution Early

Harry Reid has already begun shutting down the Senate before the GOP even introduces a motion for cloture to confirm the nomination of Priscilla Owen, according to a statement by Bill Frist:

“What a difference a day makes. Less than 24 hours after he complained the Senate is ignoring issues important to Americans, Democrat Leader Harry Reid today threatened progress on an energy bill, a jobs bill, disaster relief, and a closed intelligence meeting.

“To close down the committees over the judges issue is not only counterproductive, it could hurt Americans looking for work or suffering at the gas pumps.

“Despite any differences over the judges, the American people want their government to continue working on issues important to them. They want the Senate to do its job.

“Despite his suggestions to the contrary, Senator Reid’s actions speak volumes. It would appear the Democrats’ threat to shut down the Senate has already begun.”

True to his word, Reid has started using all available procedural tactics to stage a temper tantrum, but now it's just at the mere introduction of nominees for debate. What happened to Robert Byrd's plaintive pleas for freedom of speech? Harry Reid apparently has declared free speech in the Senate to be "dead, dead, dead!" ahead of its time.

Frist stands ready to employ the Byrd Option while Reid goes for the Gingrich Option. History shows how well each of them wound up working before, and nothing's changed in the time since to think that the end results will differ. If Reid wants to block intelligence committees from meeting during wartime, let that be his legacy to American history.

UPDATE: Kevin McCullough reminds us that Harry Reid once told us that reports that he would shut down the Senate were "absolutely not true". Just to drive the point home, he's set the Democrats' cacaphony to the Fleetwood Mac song, "Tell Me Lies". You have to listen to this ...

Not One Dime: Have You Made The Call Today?

I've held off mentioning the Not One Dime campaign, where Republicans have pledged to withhold all 2005 contributions to Senate campaigns and the national party until the GOP forces a vote on the Byrd option and eliminates filibusters on judicial confirmations. Now that Bill Frist has moved to do that, we need to make sure that we continue our pressure on the individual Republican Senators to ensure they support the motion when it comes up for a vote.

Please call the Capitol switchboard at 202-225-3121, and ask to speak to at least one of the "wobblies" today. I called earlier and spoke to staffers in the offices of Susan Collins and John Warner; Chuck Hagel, Olympia Snowe, Lincoln Chaffee, and John McCain will be on my list later. Call while the offices are open and make sure you speak to someone live, and if you can do it, call as many of these as you can.

Here are some tips:

* Don't just be polite; be friendly and sympathetic. The staffers are not enemies, and they're overworked and underpaid.

* Tell them you're calling as part of the Not One Dime effort, and that you plan on withholding funds from the NRSC until the Byrd option succeeds, and will not give a dime to any Senator who opposes it.

* If they ask you about Not One Dime (doubtful -- they're very busy), feel free to refer them to CQ for an explanation.

E-mail has an impact, but phone calls get attention, and funds at risk get even more. Make sure your voice is heard this week. (Thanks to Hugh Hewitt for the reminder.)

UPDATE: Do you think Harry Reid was talking about me in this conference call?

Most notably, he pointed out that Republican lobbyists were calling Senators who are on the fence to threaten them that if they don’t vote with leadership they won’t get campaign funds.

Maybe.

Dean: DeLay Worse Than Osama?

Howard Dean has a well-known problem of foot chewing, and he indulged himself again yesterday on his new favorite subject, Tom DeLay. Despite the lack of any criminal investigation into DeLay -- and the bogged-down ethics allegations that have now enveloped a host of Democrats along with the GOP House whip -- Dean just can't stop declaring DeLay guilty before even being indicted:

"There's corruption at the highest level of the Republican Party, and they're going to have to face up to that one of these days, because the law is closing in on Tom DeLay," Dean said in a telephone interview before heading to an appearance today in Phoenix.

"I think he's guilty . . . of taking trips paid for by lobbyists, and of campaign-finance violations during his manipulation of the Texas election process," Dean said.

The DNC chairman sang a completely different tune in the winter of 2003, when asked if he supported the death penalty for Osama bin Laden. As the Arizona Republic and Tom DeLay's office recalls, not only did Dean evade that question, he scolded people for assuming bin Laden's guilt before a jury reached a verdict (also noted here at CQ in December 2003):

"I've resisted pronouncing a sentence before guilt is found," Dean said during the 2004 Democratic primary campaign. "I still have this old-fashioned notion that even with people like Osama, who is very likely to be found guilty, we should do our best not to, in positions of executive power, not to prejudge jury trials."

So what the chair of the Democratic National Committee has pronounced is a dual standard of jurisprudence, one in which Republicans have less due process than Islamofascist terrorists that have declared war on America and murdered thousands of Americans. In the World According To Howard Dean, we must not presume the guilt of bin Laden for mass murder -- but Tom DeLay, as an eeeeevil Republican, deserves no presumption of innocence for campaign-finance and ethics violations.

How long will the Democrats allow this lunatic to represent them as the head of the party?

UPDATE: Ankle Biting Pundits say they were first with this comparison. Okay ... but I'm cuter. Oh, wait, dammit, I'm not.

More On GOP Outreach To Black Communities

Yesterday's Philadelphia Inquirer also noticed that Ken Mehlman has been working quietly to develop new ties to the African-American community, as I noted Monday as a contrast to Howard Dean's stewardship of the DNC. The Inquirer remarks on Mehlman's success in developing candidates for strategic races in Pennsylvania, which just barely went into the Democratic column in 2004 and where Democrats can hardly afford to lose any further ground:

Give us a chance, we'll give you a choice. That's the party mantra as Ken Mehlman, chairman of the Republican National Committee, travels around the country speaking almost weekly to black and Hispanic audiences. The emphasis is on shared social values and economic opportunity. President Bush's backing of education reform, and recent increases in home ownership and small businesses among African Americans are touted. Outreach and advisory committees are being formed nationally, statewide and locally.

Monday's news was the conversion of Harrisburg's influential politician, Otto Banks, to the GOP and to active campaigning for Republican candidates among African-Americans. The Inquirer also notices that Lynn Swann, the Pittsburgh Steelers' Hall of Famer who is exploring a run for Governor in 2006. Swann, who made an appearance at the Republican National Convention last year, has impressed audiences with both his style and substance and may complicate Democratic plans to defeat Rick Santorum for the upcoming Senate race as well as the gubernatorial election:

"The reception he's received... has been very good," Holman says. "He's a natural Republican conservative, but he also has the ability to reach across and build bridges throughout the many Pennsylvanias there are, both regionally and culturally."

Impressive was the word many Republicans used after seeing Swann at a recent GOP reception in Blue Bell. And those in attendance seemed more than eager to have their picture taken with him or get an autograph, overshadowing his two potential rivals - former Lt. Gov. William Scranton and State Sen. Jeffrey Piccola - who also spoke to the crowd. ...

Granted, it's early in the race. Swann must first make the rounds, court party regulars. But if, in time, he does answer those questions, and if he is one of four African American Republicans running for high office, then 2006 becomes a significant election year. Pennsylvanians get a second high-profile race, in addition to Sen. Rick Santorum vs. Bob Casey Jr. The GOP shows it's serious about change. And Democrats get nervous.

Having a smart, talented man such as Swann at the top of the ballot in Pennsylvania gives the entire election a fresh look for African-Americans. The impact of their bloc voting has been well noted by both sides, and the Democrats simply don't have any other constituencies which will make up for a significant loss of those votes. With Swann leading the state GOP, even the more conservative Santorum may have a better opportunity to have his case heard and appreciated by a community almost inured to Democratic assumptions of victory. Any significant crossover at the top of the ticket will have an effect down ballot as well.

What's Howard Dean doing while Mehlman builds the GOP at his expense? Democrats may want to find out.

Strib Descends Into Madness

The Minneapolis Star Tribune has developed a national reputation for its lunatic-fringe editorial board, but today's editorial supporting Newsweek's reporting on flushed Qu'rans highlights their complete descent into moonbattery. The editors at the Strib today raise eyebrows by endorsing "fake but accurate" as a desirable journalistic standard not once but twice -- which calls into question the quality of every single article they publish:

Newsweek used as a source a "senior government official," normally a Cabinet secretary or someone fairly close to that rank, who had previously been a reliable source. It then showed the report to two Pentagon officials before publication. One declined comment and one corrected another aspect of the story. Neither challenged the Qur'an-in-the-toilet statement.

Only after the report had been printed did the original source back away from his assertion that he had seen the confirmation in a military report on abuse at Guantanamo. On reflection, he thought perhaps he saw it in other reports or drafts; but he did see it. ...

The accusations concerning Qur'ans in toilets have been published repeatedly over the past three years in a number of media, including the New York Times, the Washington Post, a number of other American newspapers, the BBC and a Moroccan Islamic newspaper. The only thing Newsweek added was a claim of "official confirmation." While not a small thing, that supposed confirmation did not break this story; it is old news. And one source's faulty memory over where he saw information about it does not prove that the accusations of Qur'an abuse are untrue. Indeed, they still deserve further investigation.

The Strib wants more reporting on unsubstantiated allegations, not less. It fails to mention that the "old news" came exclusively from detainees at Gitmo, who are predisposed to tell these stories in order to embarass the US and rile up passions among extremist Muslims. The difference was that the Newsweek anonymous source claimed that the military had confirmed it in a report which later proved not to even have addressed the allegation. In fact, the military doesn't even have record of that allegation ever having been made in its investigations of alleged abuse at Gitmo, making the source's claim to have "seen it somewhere" highly dubious, and certainly not newsworthy.

Nor is that where the Strib's editorial paean to "fake but accurate" ends. They dredge up the Killian memos as another example of the Nixonian nature of the White House:

The White House response fits a pattern of trying to intimidate the press from exploring issues the administration doesn't want explored. Compare it, for example, to the Dan Rather report on President Bush's military service. To this day, we don't know if what Rather reported was accurate or not, or to what degree it may have been accurate. Nor do we know whether the documents he cited were genuine. All we know is that CBS can't verify that they were genuine.

First, editors at even the most country-hick weekly gazette should know that news organizations shouldn't base reports on documents that cannot be authenticated, and the Strib's defense of CBS in that regard should be an embarassment to every honest reporter in the Twin Cities. Second, the idea that the Killian memos haven't been exposed as fakes is so disingenuous as to be an outright lie. Even the CBS/Thornburgh-Boccardi report's appendix contains a statement from an independent document examiner that clearly shows on typographical, linguistic, military format, and factual bases that the memos could not have been written by Jerry Killian at the time the memos were dated. If the Strib's editors still have doubts about it, why haven't they hired their own document examiners and studied the issue?

Instead of supporting responsible journalism, the Strib instead blames the White House for Newsweek's sloppy and irresponsible gossip-mongering and anonymous single-sourcing of irrelevant but inflammatory stories. Nowhere in their editorial does the Strib explain how, even if true, a flushed Qu'ran amounts to abuse or any newsworthy issue. Instead, they use the Daily Kos as its research assistant, another indication of the pathetic state to which our state's main daily has fallen. Has the Strib shredded its own archives, or do they just not cover Washington enough to search through its own material to find its arguments?

If this editorial truly represents the editorial policies of the Star Tribune, then any journalist with a sense of ethics should cease working for this management group immediately. Otherwise, the Strib's readers must consider anything published to only have cleared the "fake but accurate" standard that their publisher endorsed this morning.

ADDENDUM: If any employee of the Star Tribune has seen evidence of malfeasance on the part of the Strib's editors, professional or personal, please feel free to contact me. As long as I use the Strib's editorial threshold of one unsubstantiated and anonymous source, I'll feel free to publish it.

UPDATE: The current Day by Day cartoon actually was intended as a reference to both the Newsweek debacle and the Peabody Awards on which I and others commented Monday. I think even the ever-relevant Chris Muir would be surprised how well today's strip matches up with the Strib's screed.

Galloway's Bluster Fails To Impress Back Home

George Galloway flew to the US to testify before the Senate investigative committee and to accuse them of being "Zionists" who conspired with George Bush to declare an illegal war against Saddam Hussein. Galloway later proclaimed himself greatly satisfied with his own performance, but his performance met with decidedly poorer marks back home. The Scotsman notes that Galloway appeared evasive and deceitful during direct testimony and never did provide any answer for the evidence and testimony that has exposed him as corrupted by UNSCAM bribes:

GEORGE Galloway yesterday failed in his attempt to convince a sceptical US Senate investigative committee that he had not profited from oil dealings with Iraq under the UN’s controversial oil-for-food programme.

Despite a typically barnstorming performance full of bluster and rhetorical flourishes, the former Glasgow Kelvin MP was pinned down by persistent questioning over his business relationship with Fawaz Zureikat, the chairman of the Mariam Appeal - set up to assist a four-year-old Iraqi girl suffering from leukaemia.

And it was a Democrat senator, Carl Levin, rather than the Republican committee chairman, Norm Coleman, who gave him the hardest time as Mr Galloway sought to turn the tables on his inquisitors, leaving him no closer to clearing his name than when he took his seat in front of the sub-committee of the Senate’s homeland security and government affairs committee in Washington.

Time and again, Mr Levin questioned him, requesting wearily that he deliver a straight answer to a straight question. But Mr Galloway could, or would not. ...

Under repeated questioning, Mr Galloway conceded that Mr Zureikat did have extensive business dealings with the Saddam regime but, challenged over whether his friend’s generous contributions to the Mariam Appeal - £900,000 by his own previous assessments - could have come from the sale of oil, he stonewalled.

Urged to say if he would repay the cash if it could be proved to have come from such a source, he again ducked the question.

While the Scotsman also ran an article which reported more approvingly on his antics, if not his effectiveness, it is clear that Galloway convinced no one yesterday of his truthfulness, especially the Senate investigative committee. Senator Norm Coleman was asked what he thought of Galloway's performance, and he indicated that perjury charges might be in order:

But Mr Coleman, accused by the MP of being "remarkably cavalier with any idea of justice", appeared unswayed by Mr Galloway’s testimony. "If in fact he lied to this committee, there will have to be consequences," he said afterwards.

Asked whether Mr Galloway violated his oath to tell the truth before the committee, Mr Coleman said: "I don’t know. We’ll have to look over the record. I just don’t think he was a credible witness."

I suspect that Galloway at that point might decide that discretion is the better part of valor and decline to return to the US, even if he could wangle diplomatic immunity out of his position as MP. He probably will be surprised that his act failed to fool the people who know him best, even if it did appear to bedazzle American media yesterday who kept repeating his opening statement at the expense of the actual questioning that destroyed it. (via Instapundit)

The Byrd Option Starts Today

With all sides acknowledging that a deal cannot be reached, the GOP will move Bush's judicial nominees for confirmation today, starting with Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown. This sets the stage -- finally -- for resolution of the unprecedented obstructionism that has kept the Senate from voting on almost a third of Bush's nominations to the appellate courts, the worst Senate record on nominations in recent history:

Republicans, led by Majority Leader Bill Frist, spent yesterday accusing Democrats of using "unprecedented" tactics to block nominees who have majority support in the Senate. They said the minority party is shirking its constitutional responsibility to provide "advice and consent" on judicial nominees by preventing final votes on them.

Democrats, led by Minority Leader Harry Reid, argued that by filibustering the nominees -- whom they describe as conservative judicial activists far outside the mainstream -- the Senate is officially registering its refusal to give consent.

"Well, it appears that we really have reached a moment of truth in the United States Senate this week," said Sen. Joe Lieberman, a Connecticut Democrat who said he'd still like to find a compromise.

"The announcement by Senator Frist and Senator Reid [Monday] afternoon that their discussions over avoiding the so-called nuclear option have failed present us now with this moment of truth and a challenge for every member of the United States Senate," he said.

As the Washington Post describes it, the script will likely follow this narrative. Frist will move the nominations for debate, and probably allow the debate on Owen and/or Brown to continue all week long, ensuring that "freedom of speech", as Robert Byrd has publicly fretted, does not become an issue. After each Senator has had a chance to weigh in on the debate -- and that will probably be the key for Frist -- he will move for cloture, and lose the vote due to the Democrat filibuster.

After losing on cloture, Frist will appeal to the chair, claiming that the filibuster rule does not apply to judicial nominations as that is a Constitutional duty of the Senate and cannot be blocked by a minority. The chair, who will most likely be Vice President Dick Cheney in his role as President of the Senate, will agree with the interpretation and rule that cloture does not apply. The Democrats will object to this ruling and attempt to overrule it, but the interpretation will only need a majority for enforcement. At that point, a precedent will have been set, and cloture will be out of order on any subsequent judicial nominations.

Interestingly, the Post article makes specific mention of the historical precedent behind Frist's strategy, something that the GOP has repeatedly pointed out but that the media have been loath to report:

A virtual script for what could happen next is included in an article published last fall in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy by Martin B. Gold, a partner at Covington & Burling who is a former floor adviser to Frist, and Dimple Gupta, a former Justice Department lawyer who was hired in March by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.).

In making their case, the authors pointed to the ways that Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) used similar tactics to lower requirements for certain legislative actions from a supermajority to a simple majority when he served twice as majority leader, in the 1970s and 1980s.

"The reason for calling it 'the constitutional option' is that it's an exercise of the Senate's constitutional power of self-governance," Gold said. "The Senate sets precedents all the time, and it sets them by majority vote."

But what happens at the end of the Byrd Option, if successful? My guess is that the Democrats walk out on all confirmation debates involving nominees they dislike, in protest. The earlier threats to shut down the Senate made by Harry Reid have long since been dropped, as a number of the Democratic caucuses must have had nightmares about a repeat of 1995 and Newt Gingrich's miscalculation in doing the same thing to Bill Clinton.

Reid, by the way, doesn't have the votes to stop it, although it had looked earlier like he thought he did. For the past week he has stopped predicting victory and instead, when asked, has issued plaintive statements like this:

Mr. Reid said yesterday that "we feel good," but "we certainly are not about to declare victory. ... It's going to take some Republicans of good will to be courageous and break from their leadership."

After a season of fumbling the ball, the GOP finally started pushing the issue hard this past month, driven by its base to get moving. While a majority of voters have still not become comfortable with the rule change, usually due to the way the question gets asked, polling shows that a majority also objects to the Democrats using the filibuster to block confirmation on nominees that reach the Senate floor. Even the moderate Senators will understand that allowing the Democrats to continue that by opposing the rule change carries significant risk in their next election. Moreover, with Reid's increasingly desperate and personal attacks on the candidates and his cynical offers to confirm a few of the "bad people" anyway, he has raised the ire of those who may have felt sympathy for his position.

By next week, the Byrd option will be a reality, and the Senate will return to its 200+ year tradition of majority rule on judicial nominations. The unprecedented attempt to usurp the role of the Executive in making judicial nominations will be finished.

Harper, Tories To Pass Budget, Oppose NDP Amendment

After the surprise defection of Belinda Stronach sent a shock wave through Canadian politics, the Conservative Party recast its electoral strategy for Thursday's vote. Instead of following the Liberal Party strategy that allows Martin to contest the confidence vote on the entire budget, Stephen Harper has instructed the Tories to pass the main budget and instead contest the amendment containing the agreement that brought Jack Layton and the NDP into alliance with Martin:

The Conservatives will vote in support of the federal budget, but will still try to defeat the Liberal minority government on separate legislation that proposes $4.6 billion in spending on housing and the environment, Tory Leader Stephen Harper announced Tuesday night.

"It's our intention to support Bill C-43, the original budget," Harper said, looking tired after a long day for the Conservative frontman that included the surprise defection of high-profile former leadership contender Belinda Stronach.

"We'll oppose Bill C-48, which was the deal with the NDP, which is complete irresponsible fiscal policy," Harper added.

The second bill was the result of efforts by the Liberals to win the support of the NDP. Both bills are scheduled for a vote on Thursday.

Ironically, Stronach's defection may have forced Harper into a smarter strategy. Martin's budget had gained popular support even among some Tories, although they indicated support for Harper and his no-confidence effort. However, Harper now has to recognize that the budget may wind up working against him for the upcoming vote, and that the attraction may yet pull away the independents he needs to win a no-confidence vote and bring down the Liberals.

The amendment, which all sides agree amounts to a separate confidence vote, really presents the crux of the Tory argument against continued Liberal rule. Martin used the amendment to buy NDP votes in a similar manner as his party used the Sponsorship Program to buy influence and launder money for party purposes. The main budget has many programs with widespread support, but the amendment only really benefits Jack Layton and his handful of deputies, meaning that targeting that legislation won't result in a backlash among his own caucus. It may also result in a few Liberals considering an abandonment of Martin, as the amendment does little to help their own causes, except for continued power for Paul Martin.

Most importantly, the amendments do almost nothing for the independents on whom Harper must rely for assistance to toss out Martin and force new elections. The primary budget had a lot to offer Cadman and Kilgour, but the amendment does nothing for them, and they can vote against it without worrying what they'll get with a Tory budget in its place. If they have an inclination to jettison Liberal rule -- and Kilgour already indicated he did -- then the amendment gives them the best opportunity to pull the trigger.

Lastly, the new strategy forces the election off of the budget, which Martin would prefer to argue, and onto the amendment he used to buy off Jack Layton. It cuts very close to the heart of the Adscam scandal and shows the power-grasping desperation Martin has displayed since its exposure. The change puts the focus of the election, if Harper succeeds, back on Liberal corruption instead of mundane budget issues.

If Harper succeeds on Thursday, that is. His chances got slimmer today with Stornach's defection, but the change may have allowed him to win the larger battle.

A Guest Of The Governor

Good news for CQ readers -- I just got at least a three-month lease on blogging from the First Mate, and I'll explain why.

About ten days ago, I received an invitation from Governor Tim Pawlenty's office to meet the Governor. After calling to confirm that the invitation was on the level (you never know with some of my friends), I found out that a representative group of Minnesota bloggers had been invited to the Governor's mansion for a reception intended to honor new media in Minnesota. All of my Northern Alliance colleagues had been invited, as well as some of the MOB bloggers that we know so well -- Doug at Bogus Gold, Patriot Blog, First Ring, Kennedy vs The Machine, and others I know I'm forgetting.

The Minnesota Governor's mansion is unusual in that it sits in the middle of a residential neighborhood -- a rather ritzy and historical district, but still more or less an upscale set of unique fin de siecle homes that still functions as a neighborhood. The only visual clue that this house fulfills a different function is the state trooper that guards the entry at the front of the lawn. When we walked up and identified ourselves, the First Mate and I were immediately shown inside, where most of the people had already arrived even though we were a few minutes early. (The drinks were free, so naturally the bloggers got there promptly.)

Marcia and I mingled with the NARN and spouses/girlfriends as well as the other bloggers and staffers from the Governor's office, who kept us entertained until Governor Tim Pawlenty arrived a few minutes after us. The most striking aspect of Governor Pawlenty is his youth and fitness. He seemed very much in his element in this neighborhood, as much as he does in his primary residence in Eagan, where Marcia and I also live. He spoke for a few minutes to welcome us and put us at ease, and then gave us a twenty-minute tour of the mansion himself.

I had an opportunity to speak briefly with the Governor before the end of the event, which was necessarily brief due to his busy schedule this week; it actually lasted almost twice as long as his staff allocated. He asked me about developments in the Canadian scandal, and John Hinderaker talked to him about GOP politics and the race in 2008. John and I both want to see Governor Pawlenty consider a run for the ticket, which may be not just viable if he wins re-election here in 2006, but may be more probable than some will think. He has a natural gift for winning the center, a skill which allowed him to turn Minnesota red in 2002 and later on give him formidable approval ratings.

If you like to handicap Presidential primary candidates, I'd suggest including Tim Pawlenty in your calculations. Nothing he said to John and I excluded him from tossing his hat in the ring.

The Governor was kind enough to spend a couple of minutes with each of us for pictures and a chat. (The above photo was taken by Chad "The Elder" Doughty from Fraters Libertas.) I've invited him to join us on the Northern Alliance Radio show, any Saturday he likes, and we'll follow up with his office to schedule something soon.

I joked earlier about the First Mate allowing me to continue blogging because of the invitation to the Governor's mansion for those of us in the new media. However, this shows that people in power have noticed the effect that we have on debate, and have started to take us seriously. A few months ago, the notion that Governors and Senators would concern themselves with the pajamaheddin seemed fanciful and somewhat self-congratulatory. Now it seems almost an inevitability, and in Minnesota, a reality. If our Governor decides to give national politics a whirl in 2008, his respect for the new media might mean access to the White House and the corridors of power for the new media as well.

Belinda's Betrayal Also Personal: Canadian Press

Belinda Stronach's defection to the Liberal Party came as a surprise to to Conservative leader Stephen Harper, who claims that Stronach never consulted him on her concerns or thoughts on crossing the aisle. However, Harper comes in a distant second in the betrayal stakes as the Canadian Press reports that Stronach never even bothered to consult her boyfriend on her abrupt about-face -- her boyfriend being Peter MacKay, Harper's second in command for the Tories:

With news reverberating around Parliament Hill of Belinda Stronach's blockbuster bolt from the Tories to the Liberals, the indelicate question was unavoidable: "What about Peter MacKay?"

Stronach's well-publicized romance with the Conservative deputy leader could hardly have come to a more stunning end.

Sources confirmed the pair are taking a "break" from the photogenic relationship first made public in January.

"Suffice it to say, I'm very happy and quite smitten," MacKay beamed at the time.

Tory insiders now say he was one of the last to know of Stronach's planned defection.

MacKay got the news early Tuesday and had the unhappy task of notifying Conservative Leader Stephen Harper.

"If he was smitten a few weeks ago, he's probably smoked today," said a party source.

MacKay won't respond to press inquiries at the moment, and who could blame him? The dissipation of this relationship could hardly have been more public and more embarassing for him. Not only did his girlfriend leave him, she left him on a moment's notice for Paul Martin, of all people, and for a cushy government position.

The entire episode appears distasteful, and reminds one of the interesting romantic intertwining of Paul Martin's office and Earnscliffe, where his chief of staff, Terrie O'Leary, lives with the consulting firm's senior partner, David Herle. Canadian politics these days appear to involve the bedroom on a more literal basis than ever before, and certainly more than in American politics. Can you imagine the political shock waves that would happen here (and the weather forecasts for Hades) if Hillary Clinton announced her defection to the GOP in order to get an appointment to George Bush's Cabinet?

Stronach appears to be the kind of politician that even politicians hate. Despite the warm welcome that Martin gave her as his potential savior of the week, don't expect too many Liberals to join enthusiastically in trusting Belinda with their backs turned.

UPDATE: Perhaps the Clinton analogy was a bit too close for comfort. The American Spectator profiled Stronach last year (h/t CQ reader Jim T) and noted the close personal connection between Stronach and Bill Clinton at the time:

For the last two years Stronach has served as CEO of Magna International, the $13 billion auto parts manufacturer her father founded. She's the only woman CEO of a Fortune Global 500 company based outside the U.S. Completely untested in politics, she shares with Arnold both celebrity status and a famous Democratic political connection in the U.S.: the Washington Post reports that she has a close personal and business relationship with Bill Clinton, with whom she has been constantly linked in gossip columns. She has told friends that Clinton inspired her to enter politics.

"She could become Canada's Arnold or a morph of Bill and Hillary Clinton," says a Conservative Party activist. "But it's the Clinton connection that really worries Canadian conservatives." Ms. Stronach was asked about her friendship with Clinton at her campaign launch in January. The National Post reported the exchange: "Had she consulted with pal Bill Clinton on her campaign? Next question please, she fumed." ...

STRONACH'S TOUCHINESS IS understandable. She recently divorced her second husband, a Norwegian four-time Olympic gold medal-winning speedskater. She is thus the most eligible woman in Canada whether or not she ever becomes prime minister.

Her friends have gone out of their way to downplay salacious thinking about her friendship with Clinton. "They are good friends," a close friend of Stronach's told the CanWest News Service last year, "but there is not a romantic linkage. It's just not that way.… You shouldn't jump to conclusions that they are having a serious fling," though the friend added Stronach is attracted to Clinton. Another friend told the wire service that Stronach is "intrigued" by Clinton's "charisma and brainpower, particularly his knowledge of world events." Stronach, according to that friend, said of Clinton: "'The guy is really smart and he really knows a lot of stuff.'"

A Magna spokesman says the two met when Mr. Clinton spoke at a company event at its private golf course three years ago and characterized their friendship as a "business relationship." Clinton spokesman Jim Kennedy said last year that the former president "has met with Ms. Stronach and her father several times over the past year to discuss the Clinton Library and Foundation."

Last year, the two were also spotted dining together at a Toronto restaurant and sharing the Stronach family's box at the Preakness horse race. Frank Stronach, Belinda's father, owns Pimlico Race Course, where the Preakness is run. Last November, Ms. Stronach was being honored with a humanitarian award at a Toronto dinner when a cellphone rang. The caller was instantly connected to a speaker phone. It was Bill Clinton calling from 12 time zones away in China to congratulate Stronach and express regret for not being able to be there in person.

To put it delicately, it appears that Stronach has employed her networking abilities to their limit in promotion of her political career. She seems to have gathered her scruples from her American political mentor as well.

Newsweek Still Blames The Pentagon For Bad Journalism

Today's New York Times shows that Newsweek is sticking with its strategy of blaming the Pentagon for not censoring its false report of Qu'ran abuse at Gitmo. While Newsweek's editorial board finally issued a retraction claiming that the story could not be substantiated, which one would consider either an indictment of its single anonymous source or its reporters or editors, the magazine believes that the US military should have superceded Newsweek's editors and made the decision not to run the information:

In the interview, Mr. Whitaker expressed frustration at the Pentagon for not informing the magazine of questions about the accuracy of the original account until about 10 days after it was published. He added that the magazine was continuing to report on the underlying accusations of Koran desecration.

An article in the current Newsweek said the original report, written by a veteran investigative reporter, Michael Isikoff, and the magazine's national security correspondent, John Barry, relied on a "longtime reliable source" who told Mr. Isikoff that a new report on prisoner abuses at Guantánamo would include a mention of a Koran being flushed down a toilet. The magazine said it showed the original article to a Pentagon official who challenged one aspect of the story but not the report about the desecration of the Koran. ...

Military officials dismissed the complaints as commanders at Guantánamo conducted media tours of the facility during which they emphasized steps taken to demonstrate respect for Islam. Inmates, they noted, were given copies of the Koran along with a cloth surgical mask, which they used as a kind of sling to suspend the book from the wire mesh walls to ensure it did not touch the floor. ...

Last month, a former American interrogator confirmed to The New York Times an account given in an interview by a former Kuwaiti detainee, Nasser Nijer Naser al-Mutairi, who said that mishandling of the Koran once led to a major hunger strike. The strike ended only after a senior officer expressed regret over the camp's loudspeaker system, which was simultaneously translated by linguists at the end of each cell block, the former interrogator said.

In that case, the accusations were of copies of the Koran being tossed on the floor in a pile and treated roughly, but there was no assertion that any had been put in the toilet.

So Newsweek wants to continue its pioneering work in the efforts to uncover Qu'ran desecration, eh? Perhaps Isikoff and Whitaker won't be satisfied until hundreds or thousands lie dead in violent protests touched off by irresponsible reporting. The irrationality of the Islamic lunatics who create killing zones over such matters is their own responsibility, of course, but Newsweek still has not addressed what it saw as the newsworthiness of the reports, even if true. What issues were at play? What laws had been broken?

The truth is that Newsweek only reported this because it knew it would make the military and the Bush administration look bad by being culturally insensitive to radical Muslims. It counted on this kind of reaction to sell copies of its magazine and to get people talking about the publication, which has never been terribly relevant before. No other explanation suffices for the inclusion of such trivial and irrelevant reporting as to the conditions of Qu'rans at Gitmo or anywhere else, except perhaps to note the extraordinary measures and procedures the military has put in place for handling this material since 9/11. Sandy Berger gave top-secret material less respect than the military gives the Qu'ran.

Newsweek needs to quit blaming the Pentagon for not having an immediate answer for a trivial and ridiculous question and for Newsweek's impatience in waiting for a more substantial response before publishing the allegation. Unless the American media wants the military to assume editorial control over all news publications, that argument is a dead loser and only highlights the weaselly aspects of the reporters and editors involved.

UPDATE: Speaking of bad journalism, my good friend Kevin McCullough explains how in six steps Newsweek managed to screw up the story.

Enter The Son, More Powerful Than The Father

When the Syrians assassinated Rafik al-Hariri in February, they must have imagined a period of disorder in which to consolidate power in Lebanon through their military and intelligence apparatus. Bashar Assad had to have thought that the Hariri clan would trouble his western horizon no more. That gives the current rise to power of Hariri's second son Saad, who has led the Future opposition coalition to the top of the polls for Lebanon's upcoming election, a certain poetic tinge:

The son and political heir of slain former Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri said on Tuesday the anti-Syrian opposition would sweep Lebanon's general elections and indicated he could lead the government after the ballot.

Saad al-Hariri, taking over the mantle of his father who was assassinated on Feb. 14, predicted the opposition would win 80 to 90 seats in the 128-member parliament.

The 35-year-old Hariri is expected to repeat his father's landslide victory in Beirut in 2000.

Hariri said the opposition, which has achieved its demands for the withdrawal of Syrian troops, the resignation of a pro-Damascus government and security chiefs, and an international investigation of the former premier's killing, still had much to do after the polls which begin on May 29.

"Our problem is that people think that our battle is over. Our battle is really just beginning: the battle for reforms," Hariri, a Sunni Muslim, told Reuters in an interview.

It won't just be a battle for reforms, and Assad knows it. Instead of chasing the Hariris from politics, he transformed the patriarch's clan into his most formidable Lebanese enemy. The family chose Saad to step into the political arena, and he has proven himself to be a similar unifying presence as his father. If he captures the two-thirds of the Parliament that observers expect, he will have the power to not only stand up to Syrian bullying on the east, but also to chase Assad's toady Emile Lahoud from the presidency -- a potential that has Saad Hariri delighted.

If that happens, the next target for Saad will undoubtedly be the disarming of Hezbollah, Assad's proxy in Lebanon and the only militia still allowed to keep its arms under the cease-fire provisions of the Civil War. An electoral mandate such as that predicted for Hariri would far outstrip any supposed enthusiasm for the continuance of Hezbollah paramilitary forces. While such a move would still cause civil disruption, a strong electoral mandate would help to keep the Lebanese Army unified to carry out the disarming of the terrorists in the south.

Bashar Assad should have stuck with Rafik. He's created a powerhouse in the form of the son instead, and Saad will likely outlive Assad, one way or the other.

Belinda Sells Out

Paul Martin has bought the support of Conservative MP Belinda Stronach with a ministerial position, changing the balance of power in Parliament and possibly saving the Liberal Party's grip on power. Martin induced Stronach to cross the aisle this morning by making her the Minister of Human Resources:

Martin said he and Stronach share common beliefs on questions of policy and politics, including the Gomery commission investigating the sponsorship scandal.

"Based on these shared beliefs, she and I have agreed that she fits more comfortably, can serve more appropriately and can contribute more substantially as a member of the government caucus," he said.

"Accordingly, I am very pleased to announce that Ms. Stronach will cross the floor and has agreed to join the cabinet as Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development."

The move could give the Liberals a better chance of passing a crucial confidence motion on the federal budget scheduled for Thursday.

Ironically, Stronach is a newcomer to politics who first launched her career by attempting to wrest control of the Conservative Party from Stephen Harper after leaving her CEO position at Magna International. After that strange move failed last year, she settled into her position as a backbencher from Ontario, one of the few Tory MPs from that province. She had spoken publicly about her reservations on using the budget for a no-confidence vote, but had sided with the Tories on the previous votes they attempted to use to bring down Martin and the Liberals. The only item that has appeared to change in the hours since the last such vote is her new Cabinet position in charge of human resources and skills development.

Given her short and strange political history, it's easy to paint Stronach as an opportunist of the most crass order, but that sells Martin somewhat short. Obviously the cash registers are open at the Liberal Party and they have positions and power to sell in order to keep their grip on the government. While Stephen Harper and the Tories continue to work through the system, Martin has proven yet again that he's willing to twist the system itself to remain Prime Minister and keep the Liberals from getting evicted from the seats of power.

Harper could still win the vote on Thursday, but it's looking a lot more doubtful now. His best opportunity would be to peel off a Grit from the West whose support of Martin's fire sale would ensure the loss of the riding. If he has a candidate for this effort, he'd better lock it in before Thursday's vote.

UPDATE: Welcome, Instapundit readers! For those of you not familiar with Canadian politics, you may want to read this update to understand just how badly Belinda betrayed her Tory associates -- one in particular.

Rather & Mapes, Together Again

The Peabody Awards luncheon yesterday provided a stage for the reunion of Dan Rather and Mary Mapes, who were honored for their journalistic prowess in revealing the Abu Ghraib prison scandal that had already been addressed by the Pentagon before CBS ever found out about it -- and both of whom later disgraced themselves in one of the worst breaches of journalistic ethics ever revealed in broadcast history. In comments that reflected the cluelessness of the Peabody voters, Mary Mapes continued to insist that the story she presented on CBS' 60 Minutes II was factually true and that CBS covered it up for "corporate" reasons:

After the ceremony, Mapes, who is writing a book, said she never believed that CBS News investigated whether the disputed facts behind the National Guard story, were in fact true. “They made a corporate decision, not a journalistic one,” she said. She also defended the suspect documents, which many said were phonies because they produced a small “th” typically used with dates (like 30th) that experts say typerwriters of the Vietnam War era were incapable of producing. “We know it was possible because we have other documents” from the same era, she said.

One has to ask why Peabody voters went out of their way to honor the CBS duo that embarassed the entire industry last year by flogging forged memos in an attempt to throw an election. It would be akin to the Pulitzer committee deciding to honor Clifford Irving for "Daddy's Girl" while he served his jail sentence for his literary hoax of Howard Hughes' autobiography. (I'm sure if he thought that anyone would have bought the argument of "fake but accurate" back then, Irving would have gladly employed it, too.) Nor was CBS the only beneficiary of Peabody's rehab work yesterday. NPR, whose Iraq War coverage has come under deserved fire for its bias and empty doomsday prophecies, also received its blessing from the news industry. They even honored the poster boy for the fake-but-accurate meme, Jon Stewart, for his work in producing news with his comedy show.

In this through-the-looking-glass atmosphere, Mapes' arguments that her Killian memos will eventually be authenticated don't surprise so much as they amuse. The Peabody committee demonstrated the operating environment that allows uberpartisan activists like Mapes to flourish in their own fantasy lives rather than in truth. For those of us who actually read the CBS report and the reports of independent document examiners -- something Mapes never did -- the fact that the Killian memos were crude forgeries is both inescapable and inarguable. They're not only stylishly anachronistic, they're factually deficient in several basic ways. (For a complete analysis of the documents, please click on the CBS category for a review of my posts on the matter.)

Rarely has an industry so honored people who have dishonored them. The Peabody committee should be ashamed of themselves for continuing to provide a platform for the incompetent and the corrupt. If that is what broadcast news chooses to champion, small wonder it is a dying industry.

More Liberal Bias In The Media

Alert CQ reader Retired Military noticed a headline at Yahoo! News this morning about the outbreak of the Sober.q virus that has dumped neo-Nazi German and English e-mail into inboxes around the world, including here at CQ. Yahoo! and/or the AP have called the Nazi material "right wing":

Computer Virus Spews Right-Wing Spam

A computer virus spewed neo-Nazi-tinged spam in English and German into inboxes over the weekend. ...

Most of these messages contain links to news stories with content that "smells of right-wing political rhetoric," said Vincent Gullotto, vice president of McAfee Inc.'s antivirus emergency response team. But a small percentage contain links to a Web site that tries to infect visiting machines with the virus, he said.

Among the many messages was one with the German subject line "60 Years of Freedom: Who's Celebrating?" referencing the end of World War II. Another read: "Honorable Action" and contained a link to the Web site of the NPD, Germany's right-wing nationalist political party. One in English carried the subject: "Dresden Bombing Is To Be Regretted Enormously," referring to the Allied attack on the German city during World War II.

Other messages warned of ethnic Mafia groups and the increase in foreigners attending German schools.

As RM asked in an e-mail to me, what if the messages supported Joseph Stalin, or contained apologias and paeans to Soviet domination of eastern Europe and the days of the gulag? What if instead of neo-Nazi propaganda, the e-mail had articles about the social progress made during Mao's Cultural Revolution? Would Yahoo! or the AP call it "liberal spam" or even "Leftist spam"? I rather doubt it; they would call it by the much more definitive description of "Communist propaganda", which would be correct.

Why, them, do they not describe this sludge in our mailboxes with the accurate term "neo-Nazi propaganda"? Could it be that Yahoo! and the AP can't tell the difference -- or perhaps that their editors see an opportunity to score a cheap shot at conservatism's expense? Both options speaks poorly of the editors at Yahoo! and/or the AP. Either they haven't the intelligence and the understanding to differentiate between conservatives and Nazis, or they want to smear mainstream conservatives whenever possible.

Harper Goes To The Mattresses

The Conservatives have taken the gloves off and started their election campaign two days before a confidence vote on the Canadian budget is scheduled. Tories started their ad campaign by asking voters why Prime Minister Paul Martin wants them to wait for a new election, and at the same time tries to negate the budget as an election issue:

The federal Conservatives unleashed a series of radio attack ads yesterday that declare Prime Minister Paul Martin's Liberals "desperate" and mired in corruption -- a tone that could carry through an election campaign anticipated to begin later this week.

The Tories are also preparing to publish their campaign platform which, The Globe and Mail has learned, will include a number of Liberal-oriented social initiatives, including a commitment to increase foreign aid to 0.7 per cent of gross domestic product by 2015. The pledge, along with cash for daycare and infrastructure spending, are an apparent effort by Conservative Leader Stephen Harper to prevent the Liberals from blaming his party for the death of their budget.

The Tory advertisements released yesterday accuse the Prime Minister of being willing to "do anything to hang on to power" and of "trying to avoid you, the voter."

In one ad, a man's voice says: "Paul Martin says 'wait.' For what? More waste? More corruption?"

Harper wants to show that Bill Clinton and Tony Blair aren't the only people who can triangulate, nor (more cynically) is Martin the only Canadian politician who can use the budget to buy votes. He's offering an attractive deal to Canadian liberals and NDP voters -- the Liberal budget without the Liberals who presided over years of corruption. It's a clever strategy, clearly designed only for the short term. However, since the primary issue voters appear to have with the Tories is Stephen Harper, this initiative gives them a chance to watch Harper work with little short-term risk. Harper and the Tories have bet that once Harper gets a chance to govern, he'll earn the trust of Canadian voters, and the Tory program will have a better chance of winning in Parliament.

Martin appears to have been taken by surprise by the attack, although the Globe and Mail could have picked a better picture to run with the story than this from a day-care visit. He called for a return to "civility" in Parliamentary politics, but that call will likely face a cold response for a government which has presided over such bald and partisan corruption. A return to civility sounds like a call to ignore the information gushing from the Gomery Inquiry until some future date months away when Justice Gomery gets around to writing a report about it, instead of dealing with the political implications of the corruption and graft now.

But the main impact of the budget promises Harper has made is to swing the independents to the Tories in the upcoming vote, and the ad campaign is probably designed primarily to assure them that Harper will follow through on his promises. The three independents would normally have more sympathy for Liberal budget priorities, especially Chuck Cadman and David Kilgour. If one of them could be convinced to vote Tory on Thursday, Martin's government will fall -- and Harper's budget offer might convince both to support him instead. Kilgour has already indicated that even absent Tory flexibility on the budget, his inclination is to kick out the Liberals and go back to the voters for a new Parliament.

My prediction for Thursday is that the Tories win by two or three votes.

Newsweek Retracts Story

Give Newsweek a small modicum of credit -- they learned a lesson from the CBS debacle over the Killian memos that the Tiffany Network itself still hasn't bothered to figure out. A couple of hours ago, Newsweek retracted its false story about flushing Qu'rans down Gitmo toilets that started deadly riots in the Middle East, costing 16 lives:

Newsweek magazine, under fire for publishing a story that led to deadly protests in Afghanistan, said Monday it was retracting its report that a military probe had found evidence of desecration of the Quran by U.S. interrogators at Guantanamo Bay.

Earlier Monday, Bush administration officials had brushed off an apology that Newsweek's editor Mark Whitaker had made in an editor's note and criticized the magazine's handling of the story. ...

Whitaker released a statement through a spokesman later Monday saying the magazine was retracting the article.

"Based on what we know now, we are retracting our original story that an internal military investigation had uncovered Quran abuse at Guantanamo Bay," Whitaker said.

Perhaps Whitaker finally realized the absurdity of his position over the past twenty-four hours, pointed out in by a blogger whose name I can't now remember. In refusing to retract the story, Whitaker actually tried to argue that Newsweek could not take that step without proof that the story was positively false -- even though they could run the story with only one source that it was true, and that source had retracted the claim. In other words, Newsweek had a higher standard for retractions than for regular reporting, a nauseating but hardly surprising revelation, considering the entire fiasco.

That dichotomy has now been resolved. Still awaiting resolution is some kind of indication that a lesson has been learned by Newsweek and its upper management about the lack of professional standards this episode revealed. Newsweek famously sat on a single-sourced news story -- by Isikoff -- when it involved a Democratic president and a paramour inside the White House. Only after Matt Drudge scooped Newsweek did the magazine release the story first revealing Clinton's dalliance with Monica Lewinsky.

This story was just as pointless; what possible news value did a flushed Qu'ran have for the American reader? First, no one bothered to even ask themselves if the story sounded plausible. How would a flushed Qu'ran promote cooperation from a Muslim terrorist? Perhaps threatening to do so would get some positive reaction, but as we've seen in reaction to the story, actually flushing one in front of an Islamist is much more likely to steel themselves against any kind of cooperation. Second, even it did happen, all toilet physics to the contrary, what of it? Does that constitute some sort of Geneva Convention violation? In view of the hand-chopping and rape rooms of Saddam Hussein, maintaining that argument borders on the macabre.

Not only was this a gossipy, ludicrous, and irrelevant piece of trivia, its power to inflame Islamists could easily have been guessed by people who have followed the war on terror, or at least its propaganda value. That's the ultimate issue with Newsweek. Its editors have proven themselves absolutely clueless, with journalistic judgment related to that of the Weekly World News. The executive management should consider that when they review the catastrophic failure of Mark Whitaker, Michael Isikoff, and John Barry that led to the deaths of sixteen people and the enormous damage to American interests in a vitally strategic area in the war on terror.

NOTE: The Anchoress relates an e-mail conversation she had with A Network Guy.

New Offer: Throw Less People Under The Bus

The Senate Democrats have reportedly made a new offer to the GOP to avert a showdown over the use of the filibuster to block nominees to the federal court. They sweetened the same offer made last week to confirm three nominees to five today, and specifically picked three that they will now demand be withdrawn from consideration, in return for a pledge to forego future filibusters except in "extreme circumstances":

With a showdown looming, a small group of Senate Democrats floated a compromise Monday on President Bush's stalled judicial nominees, offering to clear five for confirmation while scuttling three others.

Under the proposal, circulated in writing, Republicans would have to pledge no change through 2006 in the Senate's rules that allow filibusters against judicial nominees. For their part, Democrats would commit not to block votes on Bush's Supreme Court or appeals court nominees during the same period, except in extreme circumstances.

Officials who spoke on condition of anonymity said that Democrats involved in the compromise would vote to end any filibuster blocking a final vote on Richard Griffin, David McKeague and Susan Neilson, all named to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Democrats would also clear the way for final votes on William H. Pryor Jr. for the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals and Janice Rogers Brown for the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Both are among the nominees most strongly opposed by organized labor as well as civil rights and abortion rights groups and others that provide political support for the Democratic Party.

Three other nominations would continue to be blocked under the offer: those of Henry Saad to the 6th Circuit Court, Priscilla Owen to the 11th Circuit and William G. Myers III to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The messenger boy this time was Ben Nelson, a moderate Democrat in the deep-red state of Nebraska whose seat looks particularly at risk in 2006 if he continues to support the filibusters. He made the offer to Bill Frist over dinner last night after getting Harry Reid's approval. It contrasts with last week's offer in that the GOP gets four of the seven nominees past the blockade, and allows for an additional nominee expected to be filibustered to get through without a fight. The new offer also eliminates the offensive "pick your favorite nominee" game that exposed the Democrats' hyperbole about extremists on the court as a partisan joke.

Frist should and will pass on this latest offer. It does nothing to address the issue of the minority expropriating the Constitutional duty and privilege of nominating candidates from the executive, nor does it restore majority rule in the Senate on judicial confirmations, a tradition for over 200 years. And as even Trent Lott pointed out today, it still leaves the Democrats an excuse for further filibustering:

As for the current offer, said Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., "The problem with what you're talking about is the use of the words 'extraordinary' or 'extreme circumstances.' How would that be defined? And, by the way, who would make that determination? That's very difficult to do."

I find it highly interesting that the Democrats now consider Janice Rogers Brown and William Pryor to be acceptable for the federal appellate bench. Remember, only a few days ago Reid referred to these nominees as "bad people" and told Nevada schoolchildren that Brown wanted to take America back to "Civil War days". Either they're willing to pay that price to hang onto their newfound obstructionist tactic, or Reid likes to lie to schoolkids. Take your pick of cynicism, but there's no third choice.

At the end of the day, Frist has one last card to play that no one has yet discussed, one that could truly prove to be the "Constitutional" option. In the face of continued filibusters, Frist could declare that the Senate has defaulted on its duty to provide appropriate advice and consent to the Executive -- and declare that the nominees therefore have been approved in absence of rejection. That would trigger a true Constitutional crisis that would require the Supreme Court to review and decide ... the same justices who want to retire in peace, and sometime soon.

Fasten your seatbelts, folks, this will be a very bumpy and interesting ride.

Comment Of The Day

Frequent CQ commenter Aileron has this to say about Newsweek's reporting standards, and that of the American media in general (boldface emphasis mine):

... there is absolutely no legitimate reason to run a story like this. Newsweek ran the story knowing that it would excite the passions of the world's muslim population.

This type of reporting does a disservice not only to the victims of the violence it caused, but also to our Country - one of the few Countries actually committed to religious tolerance and willing to sacrifice our sons and daughters to protect the very freedom that allows religious diversity.

Exactly.

Kuwait Suffrage A Reality

One of the complaints about our choice of allies in the War on Terror reflected on Kuwait's restrictive political environment, especially towards women. This was especially true after American troops led the way for a UN coalition to liberate Kuwait from Saddam's invasion in 1991, but that criticism got revived recently with the current Bush administration's focus on democratization. Now that issue can be put to rest, as Kuwaiti women have finally been granted complete political rights in the conservative Arabic country:

Kuwaiti lawmakers approved political rights for women Monday, clearing the way for females to participate in parliamentary elections for the first time in the Gulf nation's history. ...

The nation's Cabinet asked for the vote Monday in a surprise move after a number of attempts had been stymied by fundamentalist lawmakers. The bill was approved 35-23 with one abstention and immediately became law.

Scores of women activists in the gallery immediately rose to their feet in applause, with some ululating and others singing the national anthem.

"I am overexcited. I can't believe this," said activist Rola Dashti, who said she would run in the next parliamentary election. "I'm starting my campaign as of today."

Islamists only amended the bill to ensure that Islamic law is followed, with the possible effect of creating a requirement for separate polling stations by gender. Otherwise, women now can run for Parliament and vote on the same basis as men in Kuwait -- a belated but welcome development for a staunch American ally in the Gulf, and a significant victory for the Bush administration.

This leaves Saudi Arabia as the only Arabic nation with elections on any level that excludes women by law. However, the Saudis just held their first election ever this year at the municipal level, and one might expect that repetition will eventually force a change of direction in the Kingdom as well. The Saudis are more staunchly Wahhabist, of course, which will mean that they will resist that change more than the Kuwaitis. Don't expect the Bush Administration to remain silent in the face of that resistance, especially with Condoleezza Rice as the chief officer of our foreign policy.

Annan To US: Don't Forget Our Impotence

Sometimes the United Nations acts as if it wants to provide do-it-yourself satire for websites like Scrappleface and The Onion. Today's example comes from Kofi Annan himself, who warned the Bush administration that any attempt to hold Iran accountable for its violations of the non-proliferation treaty would run into UN Security Council impotence:

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan warned the Bush administration that the Security Council might deadlock if asked to punish Iran for its nuclear program.

The United States and Britain have called for Iran to be brought before the Security Council if it carries out threats to resume efforts to make nuclear fuel. The United States and Britain believe the fuel could be used for bombs, while Iran contends that it is to generate power. China and Russia, which have strong economic ties to Iran, might veto any push to sanction Iran, Annan suggested in interviews with USA TODAY.

"Action or inaction will have a great impact on future cases and on our efforts to promote nuclear non-proliferation," Annan said. A deadlock on Iran, he said, could embolden North Korea and future North Koreas.

In other words, the UN can continue to "promote" nuclear non-proliferation only to the extent that it not be asked to enforce it. Besides being an unintentionally hilarious admission of powerlessness, it also perfectly encapsulates why the current American administration puts so little trust in Turtle Bay and its current leadership.

The US and the EU-3 have worked for years to get Iran to stop producing weapons-grade materials for an energy program they don't need in order to ensure that the Iranian mullahs can't develop a nuclear weapon. The Iranians have resisted all negotiations that work towards keeping them within the limitations of the treaty which they signed and which the UN ultimately enforces. Now that the Iranians have proven intransigent, the US and UK want to refer this to the UN, and the Secretary-General has already thrown in the towel, declaring such a move useless.

This comes as no surprise to either country. The same thing happened in the run-up to the Iraq War. We took the issue to the UN, which refused to do anything about resolving its twelve-year standoff with Saddam Hussein -- twelve years while Hussein committed genocide against the Shi'a, the Kurds, and the Marsh Arabs that opposed his iron-fisted rule. Despite an undeniable and admitted twelve-year record of non-cooperation and non-compliance with UNSC resolutions, including the cease-fire that stopped the Coalition from marching on Baghdad in 1991, the UN chose to do nothing in response.

We know by experience that the UN is incompetent, impotent, and corrupt. It's hilarious that the leader of the organization feels it necessary to publicly warn the Anglosphere of the first two in such a bald manner.

Newsweek's Excuse Du Jour: It's The Pentagon's Fault

Newsweek has not quite recovered its balance after being forced to admit that their report of US interrogators flushing a Qu'ran down a Gitmo toilet cannot be substantiated. In a series of media appearances characterized elsewhere, Newsweek editors maintain that they ran the item in good faith but that their source later backed off the claim. However, in today's Washington Post, it is becoming clear that Newsweek has adopted a new strategy for dealing with the deadly mistake which now has claimed 16 lives -- they're blaming the Pentagon for not denying the story:

[Newsweek editor Mark Whitaker] said that a senior Pentagon official, for reasons that "are still a little mysterious to us," had declined to comment after Newsweek correspondent John Barry showed him a draft before the item was published and asked, "Is this accurate or not?" Whitaker added that the magazine would have held off had military spokesmen made such a request. That official "lacked detailed knowledge" of the investigative report, Newsweek now says. Whitaker said Pentagon officials raised no objection to the story for 11 days after it was published, until it was translated by some Arab media outlets and led to the rioting.

The item was principally reported by Michael Isikoff, Newsweek's veteran investigative reporter. "Obviously we all feel horrible about what flowed from this, but it's important to remember there was absolutely no lapse in journalistic standards here," he said. "We relied on sources we had every reason to trust and gave the Pentagon ample opportunity to comment. . . . We're going to continue to investigate what remains a very murky situation."

Quite frankly, this is bullshit. They went to the Pentagon with a wild story about flushed Qu'rans and now they're surprised when no one knew anything about it? Can you imagine what Newsweek would have written and published had the Pentagon told them to keep quiet about it? They would have turned it into another Abu Ghraib, complete with cover-ups and military censorship. It would have resulted in more silly Senate hearings, and even worse publicity than what Newsweek already generated, with more loss of life -- and all for a story that sounded patently false from the very beginning.

The Pentagon does not issue knee-jerk denials for stories on which they have no information, nor should that be their fallback procedure. If Newsweek chooses to run stories about military procedures based on a single anonymous source after hearing from the Pentagon that they have no record of any such activity, that hardly puts the onus on the Pentagon. Whitaker and Newsweek have started a sleight-of-hand attempt that amounts to a claim that the Pentagon should have stopped them before Isikoff and Baker libeled Gitmo personnel, when the use of single anonymous sourcing should have been enough for Newsweek to spike the story until it was properly confirmed.

Not only have Isikoff and Baker, and Whitaker, put American soldiers and Marines in further danger, now they blame the military for not censoring them. It's pathetic, it's ridiculous, and Newsweek should be ashamed of themselves for this offensive defense of its incompetence and abjectly biased reporting.

UPDATE: LaShawn Barber has the updated blogger list posting on Newsweek's deadly mistake. And the Anchoress notes that she said much the same thing yesterday, anticipating the Newsweek meme.

GOP Outreach To African-Americans Continues

The Washington Times notes that GOP chairman Ken Mehlman continues to perform quietly (in relation to Howard Dean) but effectively in his outreach towards the African-American community. In a sign of increasing success, Mehlman's efforts resulted in the conversion of a key Pennsylvanian politician, touching off concern at the national level for Democrats:

City Councilman Otto Banks, the biggest vote-getter in Harrisburg, Pa., held a campaign fundraiser in the Pennsylvania state capital Friday with the help of Republican National Chairman Ken Mehlman that sent new fears rippling through Democratic ranks.

Mr. Banks, 33, a political newcomer, stunned Harrisburg's black community when he left the Democratic Party in March to become a Republican, starting what Mr. Mehlman and other Republican officials say they hope will become a realignment trend that will consign the Democrats to permanent minority status.

Mr. Mehlman said Friday that he met with Mr. Banks before the party switch and promised that if he joined the Republicans, "I would go up to Harrisburg and help him raise money for his campaign. This is a priority of mine, to bring more African-Americans into the party of Lincoln. I'm committed to doing it in many ways."

The crowd of 60 or so who attended the buffet breakfast, which featured Mr. Mehlman and raised $22,000, included many of Mr. Banks' black supporters, among them clergymen. "It was a very racially diverse group of people, about half white and half African-American," said Josh Wilson, the state Republican Party's communications director.

Mr. Banks was little-known outside Harrisburg before he joined the Republican Party. But that switch, and Mr. Mehlman's high-profile role in his re-election campaign, have deepened concerns among Democratic leaders such as campaign strategist Donna Brazile, who worry that they are losing their base.

This could quite easily be painted as two party chairs going in different directions, on several levels. Howard Dean this weekend wound up getting ripped by Barney Franks, hardly a Blue Dog Democrat, for his startling rhetoric that Tom DeLay should go back to Houston to start serving a jail sentence -- when DeLay hasn't even been alleged to have committed a crime. Dean has done little to appeal to anyone outside of his lunatic-fringe Leftist base of International ANSWER and MoveOn fanatics, ignoring calls from Democrat politicos like John Kerry and Hillary Clinton that the party needs to address the center.

Meanwhile, Mehlman wisely moves towards engagement with the most lock-step of the Democratic factions, the African-American community. Not only has he opened dialogues with moderate leaders in the community, highlighting school choice, free-enterprise zones, crime reduction, and other key issues that the Democrats have declared anathema due to union commitments. Mehlman's conversion of Banks demonstrates what a party chair should spend his time doing: party building instead of foot chewing.

The GOP would like nothing more than to make significant inroads with African-Americans, and the result would be better for everyone. The GOP holds power now with little or no help from the black community, which puts it at a political disadvantage that they have not known in decades. The communities themselves recognize belatedly the problem of putting all their eggs into the one Democratic basket, even if most of their so-called political leadership hasn't as yet. Having siginificant support from these communities would require the GOP to put new leaders in positions of power -- which they have shown a willingness to do -- that would exercise a strong influence on GOP priorities and messages.

It would also, as Donna Brazile frets, create a huge problem for the Democrats in national elections. The Democrats cannot survive the defection of more than 15% of the African-American vote in presidential elections or even in upcoming Senate races. In Pennsylvania especially, the GOP plans to re-elect Rick Santorum in 2006, which looks somewhat shaky as the Keystone state went blue in 2004. However, with the Republicans possibly fielding former Steeler superstar Lynn Swann for governor and converting power players like Otto Banks in Harrisburg, the Republican prospects might brighten considerably -- and in 2008 might be enough to turn Pennsylvania red in 2008, a disaster for the eventual Democratic ticket.

So far, in the case of Mehlman vs Dean, the unknown challenger continues to eat the champion's lunch. Let's keep that to ourselves, shall we?

NARAL Raids On Private Financial Data

Robert Novak writes today that the pro-abortion lobby has financed a series of fishing expeditions into the financial records of judges deemed likely for federal appellate and Supreme Court nominations, and that one of the people with the pole is none other than a former aide to Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid. Mike Rice and his partner Craig Varoga, who used to work for Reid, work for NARAL Pro-Choice America and have begun work to collect financial dossiers on judges and justices around the country:

On May 5, the U.S. Judicial Conference in Washington received a request from a man named Mike Rice from Oakland, Calif., for the financial disclosure records of U.S. Appeals Court Judge Edith Jones (5th Circuit) of Houston. A 20-year veteran on the bench, Jones is a perennial possibility for the U.S. Supreme Court. The demand for her personal records is part of a major intelligence raid preceding momentous confirmation fights in the Senate.

Jones was not alone as a target, and Rice is not just a nosy citizen. He and Craig Varoga, a former aide to Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, are partners in a California political consulting firm. Their May 5 petition requested financial information on 30 appellate judges in all but one of the country's judicial circuits, including nine widely mentioned Supreme Court possibilities. Varoga & Rice's client: NARAL Pro-Choice America.

Nobody can recall any previous mass request for such disclosures by federal judges. This intelligence raid is financed by the abortion lobby, but it looks to Republicans like a front for Reid and other senators who will consider President Bush's appointments for Supreme Court nominations. But Reid told me that he had heard nothing about this, adding: "It's ridiculous. What do we have [Senate] committees for?" However, the material is certain to be given to Democratic senators well in advance of senatorial deliberations.

All of this is nothing more than a normal day's work for Rice & Varoga. They bill themselves as public records researchers who can help candidates "win elections", but as both Reid's former communications director and as national field director for General Wesley Clark in his abortive 2004 presidential run, Varoga specialized in oppo research, according to Novak. Bringing their ethics further into question, Rice failed to disclose that he represented NARAL when making the request for financial records, indicating that he thought he had something to hide.

If people think that the Democrats are prepared to compromise on judicial nominations, think again. Their proxies have worked hard to get as much dirt as possible, as far in advance as possible, in order to effectively torpedo every nominee that comes from George Bush's White House. Their intent is to force the GOP to accept the Democrats' nominees for open appellate court seats, even though the Democrats failed to win either the White House and the Senate majority. This effort to dig through financial disclosures demonstrates a will to not only have mud ready to sling at upcoming nominees, but also to intimidate these judges and justices into declining offers to the federal bench altogether.

Harry Reid told his fellow Democrats that "he knew how to fight," and it looks like he learned it from J. Edgar Hoover. If the Republicans used confidential files and secret quasi-legal investigators to dig up dirt on public servants like this, we'd be hearing about the end of civil liberties and the coming police state. Something tells me from the huge wave of apologetics coming from the Left over Reid's abuse of the Henry Saad file last week that the outrage will be limited to only those whose ox got gored on this particular go-around. For those people who yawned at Reid's vague smears and this kind of dossier collection for political attacks on judges merits nothing more than a "partisan yammering" dismissal, the next round may well be on you.

One Roll Of The Dice

The Conservatives have decided to stop playing games with Parliamentary obstruction -- a game they have won for three straight days -- and focus their entire effort to topple the government on the upcoming budget motion Thursday:

The federal Conservatives, after a week of bitter parliamentary gamesmanship, now appear willing to pin their hopes for a spring election on one high-stakes roll of the dice Thursday when the federal budget comes to a vote.

“We will respect that vote,” Jay Hill, Tory House Leader in the Commons, said Sunday.

Prime Minister Paul Martin has said that, if his minority Liberal government loses the budget showdown, it will mean an immediate election.

It's been unclear until now what would happen if the government wins. Under parliamentary rules the Conservatives could still try to table another non-confidence motion to bring down the government later in the current session.

Mr. Hill signalled, however, that his party would likely decide to back off if it can't topple Mr. Martin this week. “If circumstances don't change I suspect we (wouldn't) see any further action prior to the summer recess,” he told reporters.

The Tories have decided that if this vote cannot bring down the government that any other no-confidence motion won't succeed either, and will wait until the autumn session to review their options. The Liberals have apparently also agreed to pair off votes for the people who won't be able to make the Thursday vote due to health concerns -- a solution made possible by the NDP's Ed Broadbent, who threatened to impose such a solution unilaterally on Friday.

Harper's decision to let it ride on the budget vote seems rather surprising. In fact, I had guessed that he might bypass the budget as a confidence vote and instead wait for an Opposition Day to table a pure no-confidence motion. He's probably correct to assume that a failure on this vote means anything else won't work under the same conditions, but with the Gomery Inquiry still in operation, those conditions change every day. Why limit the options up front? Especially since putting the vote on a budget issue plays directly into the Liberal strategy; it almost appears as if Harper wants to fight this battle on Martin's terms to prove a point.

If so, Harper better hope he wins. If he loses on this one occasion, he may wind up spending a summer regretting his big-stakes gamble.

The Return Of Day By Day, And Other Blog Notes

As I promised earlier, I've returned the daily display of Day by Day to CQ. Instead of at the top of the content, I've set it to display in the left sidebar. I've been meaning to get that done for over a week, but work issues have impinged on blogging time for the past two or three weeks. However, I wanted to make sure that Day by Day got back to its daily rotation on CQ in time for the launch of Chris Muir's new DBD collection -- which should be coming within days now!

If it's been a bit quiet here at CQ this weekend, it's due to a combination of babysitting the Little Admiral and some nasty cold and flu activity at the house, including me. I did manage to get in for an hour at the Northern Alliance Radio Network show yesterday, but most of my time since then has either been spent trying to rest up or watching Shrek 2 for the second, third, fourth, fifth, and now sixth time. I don't mind that at all -- it's a fun movie, and it beats another viewing of Disney's Princess video, which delights the Little Admiral but wears very thin on me ... very quickly.

The Little Admiral turns three later this month, by the way. My, how time flies!

I'm still working on the end of my project at work; the new call center has to get certified, and while it looks like it mostly qualifies, we still have some work to do. That'll tie me up a bit over the next few days, but not to the extent that it did over the next two weeks. In fact, I'll have some big news on CQ about me and the rest of the NARN on Tuesday, but for right now we're keeping it quiet.

The interview transcript with Beryl Wajsman has been a slow project on which to work, mostly due to the above but also because of the laptop issues that I mentioned last week. It's been behaving better since then. I bought a laptop tray specifically designed to keep better airflow around the computer, and it's helped, but I'm not sure I like the design too much. The transcripting should get some results by Tuesday, I think.

UPDATE 8:15 PM: The Little Admiral just left with her mom and her other grandparents, and she's not going quietly. Apparently the First Mate and I made her stay just a little too joyful, and she doesn't want to go home ...

Newsweek's Editorial Checks And Balances Cost Lives

Last week, Newsweek published allegations that Guantanamo Bay interrogators had flushed a Qu'ran down a toilet while questioning captured terrorists as a psychological ploy. While other news media based similar reports strictly on rumors floated by the terrorists themselves, Newsweek attributed its story by Michael Isikoff and John Barry to an unnamed source within the American intelligence service, lending the Newsweek report much more credence.

That credence and the Newsweek report touched off riots across Afghanistan and Southwest Asia, costing at least nine lives and setting back American efforts to build diplomacy towards more moderate Muslim communities. Now we find out that after nine people lay dead and anti-American sentiment now runs as hot as ever, Newsweek says that it got the story wrong from the beginning:

Two weeks ago, in our issue dated May 9, Michael Isikoff and John Barry reported in a brief item in our periscope section that U.S. military investigators had found evidence that American guards at the detention center in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, had committed infractions in trying to get terror suspects to talk, including in one case flushing a Qur'an down a toilet. Their information came from a knowledgeable U.S. government source, and before deciding whether to publish it we approached two separate Defense Department officials for comment. One declined to give us a response; the other challenged another aspect of the story but did not dispute the Qur'an charge.

Although other major news organizations had aired charges of Qur'an desecration based only on the testimony of detainees, we believed our story was newsworthy because a U.S. official said government investigators turned up this evidence. So we published the item. After several days, newspapers in Pakistan and Afghan-istan began running accounts of our story. At that point, as Evan Thomas, Ron Moreau and Sami Yousafzai report this week, the riots started and spread across the country, fanned by extremists and unhappiness over the economy.

Last Friday, a top Pentagon spokesman told us that a review of the probe cited in our story showed that it was never meant to look into charges of Qur'an desecration. The spokesman also said the Pentagon had investigated other desecration charges by detainees and found them "not credible." Our original source later said he couldn't be certain about reading of the alleged Qur'an incident in the report we cited, and said it might have been in other investigative documents or drafts. Top administration officials have promised to continue looking into the charges, and so will we. But we regret that we got any part of our story wrong, and extend our sympathies to victims of the violence and to the U.S. soldiers caught in its midst.

Remember this when the Exempt Media gets on its righteous high horse and instructs us on their superior system of checks and balances. Newsweek ran an explosive story based on a single, unnamed source that it knew would cause a huge effect on the Muslim world, at precisely the moment when we need to ensure that people understand that we're not at war with Islam. It's just a little late to say, "Oops, we're sorry." It's a little late to unring the bell that Newsweek rang with its false story -- it's too late for the nine people who died because Newsweek couldn't wait to run its story without checking it properly first.

Other bloggers covering the story:

Michelle Malkin
Marc at USS Neverdock
Power Line
Roger L. Simon
LGF

Will Wal-Mart Spoil Democratic Unity?

The Washington Post reports that one of the largest and most powerful unions in politics has attacked the Congressional Black Caucus for its engagement with Wal-Mart, the nation's largest employer of African-Americans. The SEIU has long targeted the world's largest retailer for what it calls worker exploitation, but the CBC has cozied up to Wal-Mart instead:

The Service Employees International Union has angered a number of African American House members by protesting Wal-Mart's involvement in a Congressional Black Caucus fundraiser.

The conflict between two mainstays of the Democratic Party began after Anna Burger, SEIU secretary-treasurer, wrote caucus members "to express our disappointment that the Congressional Black Caucus has given Wal-Mart an opportunity to fashion a false image as a friend of African Americans and of working people generally."

SEIU and Wal-Mart Stores Inc. sponsored an April 27 caucus fundraiser. The union has criticized Wal-Mart's personnel practices as anti-labor.

Caucus member Rep. Albert R. Wynn (D-Md.) described the letter as "presumptuous."

"The attitude of the letter was that somehow we were allowing someone to do this as though we had no free will or common sense," he said.

The CBC chairman, Rep. Melvin Watt (D-N.C.), said, "I couldn't imagine them writing a similar letter to other members of Congress, Democrats, Blue Dogs [conservative Democrats], Republicans."

Perhaps Rep. Watt doesn't have much of an imagination, as it wouldn't take much at all for the SEIU to write such a rude and "presumptious" letter to the GOP at all. The conflict between the two special-interest Democratic factions also didn't take much imagination to predict. While the outreach from the CBC to Wal-Mart might surprise some, a Democratic movement towards the billions of dollars that Wal-Mart represents should surprise no one. Even a group as normally strident as the CBC understands the power of Wal-Mart and has to accommodate that power to a certain degree.

Of course, the SEIU also has power of its own, but the power it has relies on a false sense of solidarity from its rank and file. While the union, and others like it, control millions of dollars that they push into the political process, the votes the SEIU ultimately represents amount to much less than advertised. The union members select their votes based on a number of reasons and values, and since many join the SEIU only because of closed-shop laws, the diversity at the member level runs much deeper than at the executive level. Unions have been in a rather steep decline for the past few decades, and if the Democrats continued to blow off corporate concerns for union factionalism, they'd be signing their political death warrant. Even the CBC understands that much.

This may well portend a bigger problem for the Democrats as they struggle to hang onto their Left while pursuing the center. If the unions insist on purity -- if they object to every overture made by the Democrats to mainstream business, and especially if they make a public row out of it -- the Democrats may wind up losing them to the Greens or another fringe party on the Left.