Yes, That's One Solution We Can Endorse

Coming To A Head On Iran

The day of reckoning with Teheran comes ever closer, as President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad refuses to stop their nuclear research even when facing the threat of UN sanction:

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Saturday painted the United States and other Western nations as bullies with "a medieval view of the world" and insisted his nation has the right to conduct nuclear research.

"A few Western states ... have nuclear arsenals, they have chemical weapons. They have microbiological weapons. And every year they establish tens of new nuclear power plants. Now they are criticizing the Iranian nation ... because they think that they are powerful," Ahmadinejad said, apparently referring to the United States and the EU-3 -- Britain, France and Germany.

Talks between the EU-3 and Iran stalled last year, and Iran on Tuesday resumed research at its Natanz uranium enrichment plant -- an act viewed with suspicion by the United States and EU-3, which fear the country may be planning to produce a nuclear weapon.

"Our nation does not need a nuclear weapon," Ahmadinejad said. "We are a civilized and cultured nation. We have logic, we have civilization ... Nuclear weapons are only needed for people who want to solve everything through use of force."

Now would be the time for Western nations to stand together in a show of unity to demand Iranian compliance or face the imposition of a tough sanctions regime. Unfortunately, the new government of Germany took the occasion of their first visit to the US to launch the new version of appeasement they want to use:

Germany's deputy foreign minister, in comments from an interview to be broadcast Sunday on German radio, said that imposing economic sanctions on Iran would be a "very dangerous path" and would hurt both sides, according to Reuters. He favored imposing travel restrictions on Iran.

This indicates that the US will shortly face the same conundrum we did with Iraq -- a major security issue on which the UNSC refused to take any action to resolve, opting instead for the illusion of status quo. That illusion will result in a nuclear-armed Iran within months, and the US cannot afford to allow that to happen. If the UNSC refuses to act responsibly in facing down the mullahs of Iran, then we either will have to take action among nations willing to ensure that Islamofascists don't get nuclear weapons -- or prepare to face a nightmare scenario where suicidally psychotic states and organizations have ready access to nuclear bombs and the missiles that can deliver them.

We need to force the UNSC to make its decision on this ASAP, so we can have the rest of our options open to us in time to stop the Iranians from getting the bomb.

Is AQ An Equal Opportunity Employer?

One of the documents revealed yesterday in the case of Jose Padilla, now that his case has been transferred to civilian court, was an application to join al-Qaeda. The government found his application -- known to AQ as a "mujaheddin data form" -- in Afghanistan shortly after the October 2001 invasion that pushed the Taliban from power and set AQ leadership running for the hills. It comprises one part of the evidence that the DoD is willing to use publicly in order to gain a conviction against Padilla for conspiracy to commit terrorism:

After the U.S. military invaded Afghanistan to oust its Taliban rulers, authorities found a locker full of applications to join al Qaeda's holy war overseas.

Among the alleged applicants: José Padilla, the former ''enemy combatant'' who once lived in Broward County.

A prosecutor produced the alleged document for the first time Thursday in Miami federal court, where Padilla pleaded not guilty to conspiracy charges that he was a recruit for a North American terrorist cell with South Florida links that aided Islamic jihad abroad.

Can anyone imagine what an AQ application would ask of its prospective followers? Having been a hiring manager for several years, I think I can take a swing at composing a standard form. Feel free to print this out and send it to Ayman "Grease Spot" Zawahiri, Pakistan.

Allahu akbar! So you've decided to join the fastest-growing organization of psychopathic murderers in the world today. Due to the exciting type of work we perform, we always have room for more volunteers, and so we welcome you to our ranks. We'd like to get to know you, while we can, so please answer a few questions for us:

Name: Abu ____________

Real name: __________________

Gender: ______ Male __________ Chattel (if so, stop here)

Marital Status: ____ Single _____ Married (# of wives: ______)

Reason For Interest In al-Qaeda (circle all that apply):

a. Hatred for everything Western, except those hot babes on Baywatch
b. Suicidal impulse but lacking the skills to carry it out
c. Inability to get women to date me
d. Want to travel and see the world before I realize my ambition to destroy it
e. Having 72 inexperienced young girls later sounds better than dealing with one nagging woman now

Would you be willing to relocate? Y/N If Y, in pieces? Y/N

Do you have any of the following disqualifying conditions?

a. Conscience
b. Soul
c. Survival instinct
d. Half a brain or more
e. Fear of flying

Thank you again, mujaheddin, on behalf of al-Qaeda -- an Equal Opportunity Destroyer

UPDATE: I forgot to link to Michelle Malkin, who has a copy of the real thing on her site. I think mine works better, though ...

CQ On The Air Today

The Northern Alliance Radio Network expands today into its new four-hour timeslot starting at 11 am CT, with a few format changes. Our friends at Fraters Libertas and Power Line will take over the first two hours, and today feature an inteview in the second hour with Stephen Hayes, whose work in reporting on the captured Iraqi Intelligence Service files has shown that the Saddam regime trained Islamist terrorists by the thousands.

In the third and fourth hours, Mitch Berg and I will review the news of the week, including my reporting on the week I spent in Washington covering the Alito confirmation hearings. King Banaian of SCSU Scholars would normally join us in hours 3 and 4, but he is on assignment this weekend. Mitch also will cover the ongoing issues of the smoking ban in today's show.

For those of you in the Twin Cities, we can be heard on AM 1280 The Patriot, which has an Internet stream for everyone else to follow our exploits. We welcome all callers to join us at 651-289-4488 to join the debate. We've had callers from Chanhassen to China and all points in between -- so get out the cell phones, use those free weekend minutes, and dive into the debate!

Shame On CNS For Murtha Attack

CNS News Service reports on questions regarding the validity of the Purple Heart medals received by John Murtha during his service in Viet Nam, recalling the fight against John Kerry and his run at the Presidency. The strange and pointless investigation appears to have started when Murtha began his public campaign against the Bush administration and his Iraq policy:

Having ascended to the national stage as one of the most vocal critics of President Bush's handling of the war in Iraq, Pennsylvania Democratic Congressman John Murtha has long downplayed the controversy and the bitterness surrounding the two Purple Hearts he was awarded for military service in Vietnam.

Murtha is a retired marine and was the first Vietnam combat veteran elected to Congress. Since 1967, there have been at least three different accounts of the injuries that purportedly earned Murtha his Purple Hearts. Those accounts also appear to conflict with the limited military records that are available, and Murtha has thus far refused to release his own military records.

What a waste of time and effort on CNS's part, and one that should bring shame on its editors. Unlike Kerry, Murtha is not running for office on the basis of his war record -- and unlike Kerry, Murtha did not leverage his injuries to get n early departure from the war zone. He also does not brag about the Purple Hearts, and to the best of anyone's knowledge, does not use them as a golem in place of real political debate. Neither does anyone doubt that his long service in the Marine Corps was anything but honorable, and he did not engage in the wholesale smearing of American servicemen upon his return from combat duty in Viet Nam.

In short, he may have highlighted his honorable service to the level expected of politicians who served his country during time of war during his political campaigns, but that's as far as he's pushed it. He used his military experience as a basis of credibility on which to speak of politico-military strategy, but not -- I repeat, not -- his Purple Hearts. He has kept those out of the public debate on Iraq or his qualifications for leadership.

That, in my mind, puts them out of the realm of debate. It makes them an issue between Murtha, the DoD, and his physicians, and that's where they should stay -- and CNS should be ashamed of themselves for making them into anything else.

If someone wants to attack John Murtha's policy statements, there's ample room for criticism there. If people have issues with his defeatism, then they should specifically call Murtha out for that. Let's not get into denigrating a former Marine's commendations when he has not abused them himself for political purposes, especially when he has such a long record of honorable military service.

Murtha responds to his critics at HuffPo, both links courtesy of Memeorandum.

Grits Plan To Start Campaign ... Real Soon

With ten days left before the Parliamentary elections in Canada and the Tories firming up a lead that indicates a possible majority government, the Liberals now say they're ready to start campaigning. They have attack ads that they plan to run during the final week of the election campaign, even though many have already voted in the advanced polling that started this weekend:

Liberal strategists believe they can turn around the last week of the campaign by continuing to broadcast their attack ads and going hard after Conservative Leader Stephen Harper, hoping that something will stick.

Liberal Leader Paul Martin executed part of that strategy yesterday as he hammered away at the Conservative policy platform, arguing that the numbers don't add up and it is a throwback to the Mulroney era.

On Monday, Mr. Martin begins a race across the country to shore up the Liberal vote, as he did in the last week of the 2004 campaign. ... Pierre Ladouceur, who is developing the French-language ads for the Liberal campaign, said they were correct to focus on the post-Christmas period.

“Do you remember anything that was said in the month of December?” he asked yesterday. “I don't think there's much value to the month of December. . . . Really, the campaign started on Jan. 2.”

M. Ladouceur may want to rethink his analysis. The advertising campaign that he helps run has done nothing to stop the collapse of Liberal support in Canada. According to the latest Ipsos polling, the Tories maintain a national lead of ten points among likely voters (39-29) and eight points among all Canadians (37-29). Two new developments show the further erosion of the Grit base. For the first time, Ipsos shows Stephen Harper edging Paul Martin for the better choice as PM (32-31), completing a nine-point swing. And now Atlantic Canadians have moved into the Tory column, 42-30 over the NDP, which surpassed the Grits (26%) in this region. Martin used to have a 42% plurality in the Atlantic, but that has long since sunk, and at the moment would not even qualify as the official Opposition in that region.

As for Ladouceur's assertion that the election began on January 2, the Ipsos numbers show that the Liberals have been particularly inept during that two-week period. On January 2nd, the race was a dead heat (Tories 33-32), and the Liberals had a wide lead in Atlantic Canada and a narrow lead in British Columbia -- both dissipated now. In Quebec, they controlled the important second-place finish, 26-12, but now only lead within the margin of error, 24-21.

If I were the Tories, I would welcome more of M. Ladouceur's intervention. Another week of this Liberal leadership directing their electoral efforts and Harper could have the BQ as his main Opposition while ruling from a majority position.

AQ #2 Not Residue, Locals Say

The AP reports that two senior Pakistani officials now say that the people killed in the missile attack on Damadola were locals, not AQ leadership, and that the attack resulted from mistaken intel. The forensics on the bodies that were retrieved have not yet been completed, but the locals claim that the dead were a family of jewelers and not AQ terrorists:

Al-Qaida's second-in-command was the target of a U.S. airstrike near the Afghan border but he was not at the site of the attack, two senior Pakistani officials said Saturday. At least 17 people were killed. ...

The senior Pakistani officials told The Associated Press on Saturday that the CIA had acted on incorrect information, and Ayman al-Zawahri was not in the northwestern village of Damadola when it came under attack. Al-Zawahri is ranked No. 2 in the al-Qaida terror network, second only to Osama bin Laden.

"Their information was wrong, and our investigations conclude that they acted on a false information," said a senior intelligence official who has direct knowledge of the investigations launched by Pakistan to look into the attacks. His account was confirmed by a senior government official, who said al-Zawahri "was not there."

Pakistan's government was expected to formally issue its reaction later Saturday.

An AP reporter who visited the scene in Damadola village about 12 hours later saw three destroyed houses, hundreds of yards apart. Villagers recounted hearing aircraft overhead moments before the attack. By their count at least 30 people died, including women and children.

Attacks using unmanned Predators have a higher risk of going wrong, and the US would prefer to capture targets like Zawahiri alive anyway. Pakistan, however, has not allowed the US to operate very freely in that area for some time now, although we have made it clear that we will take out AQ leadership wherever we think they might be. It's yet another reason why the WOT requires boots on the ground and traditional military operations as well as covert operations. Without having both, the intelligence needed for further operations gets more difficult to find and to confirm. In Iraq, for instance, our presence has allowed the Iraqis to finally understand that we will not leave while AQ remains -- and they remain highly motivated to pass along thousands of tips every month for us to track them down.

The forensic results should be announced by tomorrow on the bodies retrieved immediately after the attack. Hopefully they will prove to have been AQ leadership, especially Zawahiri or even Osama himself. If not, then the CIA has some explaining to do at the White House come Monday morning. However, we should not overreact to the miss or the missed intel (if that is what it proves to have been), nor should we let up in our pursuit of the leaders of the lunatics that conducted the 9/11 plot. This is war, and unfortunately war results in collateral deaths by mistaken targeting.

50 Ways To Lose Your Power

The run of luck that the Liberals enjoyed last spring while the Gomery inquiry jumped into the headlines must seem like a lifetime ago to Paul Martin. Tonight, a new scandal has broken out north of the border, as our good friend Kate at Small Dead Animals notes. The Liberals expelled a candidate for a riding in British Columbia after the NDP reported a bribe attempt to get their candidate to withdraw and endorse the Grits:

Liberal Leader Paul Martin dumped one of his Liberal candidates in British Columbia on Friday after the man was accused of trying to bribe the local New Democrat candidate. ...

The move came just a few hours after the NDP publicized a complaint to Elections Canada from NDP federal secretary Eric Hebert alleging Mr. Oliver, the Liberal candidate in Abbotsford, offered NDP rival Jeffery Hansen-Carlson a job in Ottawa and help contesting the next civic election if he publicly threw his support behind the Liberals.

Both Mr. Oliver and his campaign manager, Gordie Kahlon, denied the bribery allegation, especially since the Liberals had no hope of winning the staunchly Conservative riding. ...

In a notarized letter attached to the NDP complaint, Mr. Hansen-Carlson said the offer came at a meeting last Tuesday with Mr. Oliver and Mr. Kahlon, at the Liberal candidate's office.

Mr. Hansen-Carlson said he became suspicious when Oliver's manager said he had heard that the New Democrat had "civic aspirations."

This broke just hours after the Tories had to drop one of their candidates in BC after finding out that he concealed smuggling allegations and formal charges. Instead of making hay with the Conservatives on what could have been a devastating blow to the Tory hopes to capture a majority government. Now the Liberals instead have shot themselves in the foot, snatching defeat once again from the jaws of victory when last spring they used all of their efforts to free themselves of the Essence of Adscam. They almost seem to want to lose power as suddenly and as effortlessly as they once claimed it.

#2 AQ BBQ Residue?

American media sources report that al-Qaeda's number two leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, may have been killed in an attack on a suspected AQ safe house in Pakistan earlier this evening. Estimates of the dead after the American air strike on the compound in Damadola, a remote village near the Afghan border where both he and Osama bin Laden had been rumored to have hidden themselves away from both US and Pakistani forces. ABC News reports:

Today, according to Pakistani military sources, U.S. aircraft attacked a compound known to be frequented by high-level al Qaeda operatives. Pakistani officials tell ABC News that al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden's top lieutenant, may have been among them.

U.S. intelligence for the last few days indicated that Zawahiri might have been in the location or about to arrive, although there is still no confirmation from U.S. officials that he was among the victims.

ABC also reports that the forces on the scene have identified five bodies, possibly more, as potential top-level AQ leadership. Forensic experts have started their analysis to determine if the air strike with the unmanned airplane has put an end to the operational mastermind of the Islamofascist network responsible for 9/11:

Villagers described seeing an unmanned plane circling the area for the last few days and then bombs falling in the early morning darkness. Eighteen people were killed, according to the villagers who said women and children were among the fatalities.

But Pakistani officials tell ABC News that five of those killed were high-level al Qaeda figures, and their bodies are now undergoing forensic tests for positive identification.

It will take a day or two for the bodies to be recovered and an identification confirmed. In the meantime, al-Jazeera may soon have to start auditioning people to make new videos for their nightly news. (H/T: Michelle Malkin and Power Line)

An Appeal from Center-Right Bloggers

Note: This first appeared on the Truth Laid Bear, who has headed this effort.

We are bloggers with boatloads of opinions, and none of us come close to agreeing with any other one of us all of the time. But we do agree on this: The new leadership in the House of Representatives needs to be thoroughly and transparently free of the taint of the Jack Abramoff scandals, and beyond that, of undue inlfuence of K Street.

We are not naive about lobbying, and we know it can and has in fact advanced crucial issues and has often served to inform rather than simply influence Members.

But we are certain that the public is disgusted with excess and with privilege. We hope the Hastert-Dreier effort leads to sweeping reforms including the end of subsidized travel and other obvious influence operations. Just as importantly, we call for major changes to increase openness, transparency and accountability in Congressional operations and in the appropriations process.

As for the Republican leadership elections, we hope to see more candidates who will support these goals, and we therefore welcome the entry of Congressman John Shadegg to the race for Majority Leader. We hope every Congressman who is committed to ethical and transparent conduct supports a reform agenda and a reform candidate. And we hope all would-be members of the leadership make themselves available to new media to answer questions now and on a regular basis in the future.

Signed,

N.Z. Bear, The Truth Laid Bear
Hugh Hewitt, HughHewitt.com
Glenn Reynolds, Instapundit.com
Kevin Aylward, Wizbang!
La Shawn Barber, La Shawn Barber's Corner
Lorie Byrd, Polipundit
John Hawkins, Right Wing News
John Hinderaker, Power Line
Jon Henke / McQ / Dale Franks, QandO
James Joyner, Outside The Beltway
Mike Krempasky, Redstate.org
Michelle Malkin, MichelleMalkin.com
Ed Morrissey, Captain's Quarters
Scott Ott, Scrappleface
John Donovan / Bill Tuttle, Castle Argghhh!!!

Justice Dept Study Urges Canada To Legalize Polygamy

No sooner than Canada legalized gender-neutral marriage than a new study commissioned by their Justice Department has concluded that the government should repeal the criminalization of polygamy. In a report that the Canadian Press received confidentially, the Queen's University study not only recommends decriminalization but a regulatory system defining spousal support and inheritance rights based on marriage order and other considerations:

A new study for the federal Justice Department says Canada should get rid of its law banning polygamy, and change other legislation to help women and children living in such multiple-spouse relationships.

“Criminalization does not address the harms associated with valid foreign polygamous marriages and plural unions, in particular the harms to women,” says the report, obtained by The Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act. “The report therefore recommends that this provision be repealed.” ...

Canadian laws should be changed to better accommodate the problems of women in polygamous marriages, providing them clearer spousal support and inheritance rights.

This news hardly helps the outgoing Liberal cause in the upcoming election. With Paul Martin loudly proclaiming his pride in pushing through the gender-neutral marriage legislation during the entire election and attempting to scare voters away from the Tories on the issue, his own Justice Department has proven the slippery-slope argument Tories have made all along. When one attempts to redefine two milennia of Western thought on the meaning of marriage by the simple fiat of transitory plurality rule, it opens the door to all sorts of questions -- and the minimization of tradition required for the first step removes the impediments for more radical action in its aftermath.

Already, Canadian polygamist activists have taken up the same arguments as gay-marriage advocates did. “Why criminalize the behaviour?” [the study's lead author] said in an interview. “We don't criminalize adultery. In light of the fact that we have a fairly permissive society ... why are we singling out that particular form of behaviour for criminalization?”

Well, libertarians might argue, why indeed? They may have a point. Undeniably, though, the advocates for traditional marriage had it right when they argued that redefining marriage would open a Pandora's box for all sorts of other banned behaviors. The paleolibertarian argument will continue ad nauseam until the government will have to allow any combination of consenting adults, regardless of consanguinuity, to form whatever sexual relationships they desire -- and then come up with laws that govern the messy outcomes of the failure of those relationships.

It would seem that the most prudent option would be the use of domestic partnerships using contract law instead of redefining marriage for the whole of society just to satisfy a fringe element. At least the contracts then govern the outcomes of the failed partnerships, and we don't have to chuck out two millenia of Western culture as our touchstone for human progress.

Conservatives Headed For Majority

Canadians appear poised to upend all expectations of the electorate, which just weeks ago appeared to suffer from ennui and a sense of the inexorable nature of Liberal government. Instead, the Tories have pushed the election to the brink of a Parliamentary majority and the Liberals might have trouble qualifying as the Opposition, according to projections from the Globe & Mail:

The Conservative Party will come within a few seats of winning a majority government, if current levels of voter support hold up, according to projections by the Strategic Counsel. ...

The projections, which are calculated by running this week's Strategic Counsel poll of more than 3,500 Canadians through a mathematical formula, are that the Tories will win 152 seats on Jan. 23, followed by 74 for the Liberals, 60 for the Bloc and 21 for the NDP. There are 308 seats in the House, so a party needs 155 to form a majority. ...

The latest poll conducted Tuesday and Wednesday indicates the Conservatives have the support of 39 per cent of the electorate, compared with 27 per cent for the Liberals, 16 per cent for the NDP and 12 per cent for the Bloc. Conservative support in Quebec appears to have stabilized in recent days at 23 per cent, compared with 48 per cent for the Bloc Québécois, 18 for the Liberals and 8 for the NDP.

The twelve-point gap appears to have solidified in most polling now, showing that Canadians may have firmed up their electoral choices with less than ten days to go before the elections. The last Ipsos poll showed the same gap, and also showed the Tories moving ahead of the Grits in their power base of Ontario, a body blow to the hopes of Paul Martin to retain any notion of holding power. SES Research has the gap at around nine or ten points consistently, and an eight-point gap favoring the Tories in Ontario.

With a majority so tantalizingly close, expect a little pullback of the vote between now and January 23rd. Some Canadians may not want to see anyone in the majority, preferring a negotiated minority government that still puts Stephen Harper in charge, but answerable to Gilles Duceppe or Jack Layton. One presumes that this collapse will spell the end of Paul Martin's political career, and so possibly a purged Liberal Party might wind up joining the Conservatives to form a national-unity government -- but that would likely infuriate the BQ and exacerbate separatist sentiment.

Without a doubt, however, Canadians have awoken from their supposed scandal fatigue to deliver a message to would-be leaders of their government. If they cannot hold themselves accountable for their governance, the voters intend on doing so themselves.

WaPo Exercises Relativity, Scolds Both Sides For Hearing

The Washington Post editorial board did what it usually does when the Democrats stage outrageous behavior -- find a way to scold Republicans in order to allow themselves to feel good about damning the Democrats as well. In today's unsigned editorial, the board knocks the Republicans for playing fatuous defense counsels while the Democrats engaged in scurrilous character attacks:

The hearings were less illuminating than one might have hoped. Democratic senators often seemed more interested in attacking the nominee -- sometimes scurrilously -- than in probing what sort of a justice he would be. Even when they tried, their questioning was often so ineffectual as to elicit little useful information. Republican senators, meanwhile, acted more as fatuous counsels for the defense than as sober evaluators of a nominee to serve on the Supreme Court. On both sides, pious, meandering speeches outnumbered thoughtful questions. And the nominee himself was careful, as most nominees are, not to give much away. The result is that Americans don't know all that much more about Judge Alito than they did before.

Still, the hearings provided some useful information. For starters, Judge Alito, though not as polished as Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., was fully versed in constitutional and statutory law. When President Bush nominated Harriet Miers, many commentators worried that under the glare of the hearings, she would not seem up to the job of a justice. Judge Alito's intellect and qualifications have never been the subject of similar controversy, and these hearings showed why. He is in command of the diverse subject matter with which federal courts deal, conversant in the details of his own decisions and knowledgeable about constitutional history. This may be a mere baseline qualification for confirmation, but it is an indispensable baseline.

This editorial begs a few points. First and foremost, the need for Republicans to present a defense for the nominee comes from the inability of the hearing process to allow the nominee to effectively defend himself. The only participant not given time to present counterarguments to charges raised in questioning is the nominee, who must literallly sit there and absorb whatever abuse the Senators wish to dole out. It hardly resembles any American process in justice; in fact, it more resembles a show trial in the grand tradition of Joseph Stalin than anything else, with the Democrats stumbling over themselves to play character assassin.

Under those circumstances, the Republican urge to present defenses to these charges -- scurrilous, as the Post manages to admit -- is quite understandable. It would also appear that the Republicans understand and accept the ethics rules about sitting or prospective jurists refraining from issuing opinions on matters likely to come before them in the future. Like the Democrats, they asked prior nominees about issues such as abortion. Unlike the Democrats, they did not hound the nominees about those issues, nor did they disparage them as evasive or dishonorable for failing to act unethically during testimony -- and they overwhelmingly confirmed those nominees both in committee and on the Senate floor.

The Post complains for most of the rest of the article about how useless the hearing proved, not getting answers to supposedly vital political and legal issues. The problem for the Post isn't the hearings but the expectations of their editorial board about what the hearings should provide. In fact, they should have been satisfied to learn exactly what they describe in the second sentence above: that Judge Alito has the temperament, ethics, qualifications, and grasp of the law necessary to perform the job for which the President nominated him. The consideration of politics got settled in November of 2004, when the people elected this President to nominate qualified candidates of his choice to the federal bench. Elections have consequences, something that Democrats and the Washington Post have not yet learned.

In years past, the Senate didn't even bother with confirmation hearings. Those only convened under extraordinary circumstances, even for Supreme Court nominations, usually when a real issue of lack of qualification arose. Byron White's hearing in the early 60s, one of the first regularly-planned confirmation hearings, took 15 minutes -- just an introduction to the Judiciary Committee and a review of his CV.

In the future, the Senate should either promulgate rules of order for this out-of-control character-assassination committee, parameters that allow the nominee to act within the ethical bounds of their profession while being able to defend him/herself from the McCarthyist attacks of any party, or it should bar public hearings for confirmations altogether. The sad spectacle of American jurists being required to sit on television, immobile and unreactive to the slanders of politicians whose own ethics make a mockery of their Inquisition, in order to just get a promotion, hardly reflects the values in which most Americans believe for their justice system.

The Incredible Cluelessness Of Senator Schumer, Continued

If Ted Kennedy provided the most bombastic example of foolishness of the Alito testimony, his colleague Chuck Schumer comes in a close second as a fool of the first order. This last day of testimony provided plenty of examples, but I will be happy to show a couple of them -- one with Alito, and the other later in the day with the ABA. In the first, Schumer apparently had his mind set on catching Alito in a contradiction, and wanted to move in for the kill. On the video, viewers could see Schumer's agitation level rise as his hands flew all over the place and his over-the-glasses stare sharpened considerably. He tried to make the case that he allowed the government to make new arguments on appeal when he earlier denied the same process to a "retarded" plaintiff -- but as Alito pointed out, the difference was a Congressional mandate in the former case:

SCHUMER: I understand it's a government case. Let me just make -- I'm going to let you answer it. I just want to make the point here so everybody can understand. The majority in Smith v. Horn to say -- this time it was the government had failed to raise the issue in the district court brief. This time you were prepared to excuse that failure. This time you felt it was appropriate to consider the issue on your own.

I am at a loss to understand the difference. I'm going to give you a chance to explain, but I want to read what the majority in Smith v. Horn had to say about your indulgence of the government for failing to bring up an issue, just as the retarded person in that case did.

They said: "Where the state has never raised the issue at all, in any court, raising the issue ourselves puts us in the untenable position of ferreting out possible defenses upon which the state has never sought to rely. When we do so, we come dangerously close to acting as advocates for the state rather than as impartial magistrates."

SCHUMER: So as far as I can see, the legal principle and procedural rule in each case was precisely the same. The only difference being that the first was a sexual harassment plaintiff who left out an argument, and in the second it was the government who did.

In the first case, you said to that retarded individual, "Sorry, you're out of luck." In the second case, you said to the government, "I'll make your argument for you." And that doesn't seem even handed to me.

Can you explain the difference, please?

ALITO: Yes, Senator.

As I was attempting to explain a couple of minutes ago, there is an important principle called the principle of comity that is involved in habeas cases. And it goes to a critical part of our concept of federalism, and it's something that Congress itself has very strongly recognized in the habeas corpus statute.

What I'm talking about there is the doctrine of procedural default, which is very closely related to the doctrine of exhaustion. They go hand in hand.

And what Congress has said in the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 is that on the issue of exhaustion, the court has to consider that even if the parties don't raise it.

SCHUMER: Now, that applies to the government as well as to the defendant?

ALITO: Absolutely.

The issue of exhaustion must be considered by the federal habeas court, even if the state prosecutor does not raise the issue of exhaustion. And why did Congress say that?

Congress said that because there's something more involved here than a dispute between the state prosecutor and the habeas petitioner; there is respect for the federal system of government involved. There is respect for the state court system involved.

SCHUMER: But the majority didn't agree with you in that situation, did they?

ALITO: The majority -- but what I'm saying, Senator, is that the underlying principle of comity makes this case, makes Smith v. Warren quite different from a dispute between private parties. Now, the Supreme Court has said that it is appropriate in certain circumstances for the court to consider procedural default sua sponte, and that's what I thought we should do there.

And my position on...

SCHUMER: Let me ask you -- I understand your explanation. I'm not sure I agree with it.

Now wouldn't one think that a member of Congress who voted on that law should know that material before asking the question? Moreover, the requirement obviously would apply to both sides of a habeas case. Alito certainly knew the answer.

The second incident came during the ABA's explanation of how it came up with their highest rating for Judge Alito. Schumer's turn to offer questions came late in that round. Again, like any bad lawyer, he asks one question too many:

SCHUMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have a brief question because we've heard a lot about the ABA rating, which is something that's prized and important.

Your sheet here that describes it says it describes three qualities: integrity, professional competence, judicial temperament. Is that right?

TOBER: That's correct.

SCHUMER: So it would not get into what somebody's judicial philosophy would be. Is that correct?

TOBER: That's also correct.

SCHUMER: And so, if somebody were very far right or very far left, as long as they had integrity, professional competence or judicial temperament, you would give them -- that's what you would rate them on.

TOBER: Senator, we don't do politics.

What we do is integrity, professional competence and judicial temperament. They are objective standards. And that's what we bring to this committee.

SCHUMER: And if one standard was -- however one defined it, if somebody was out of the mainstream, again, your rating would not give us any inclination whether that was part of it?

TOBER: If the suggestion was that they were out of the mainstream politically, that's correct.

If they're out of the mainstream in terms of their judicial temperament, we might have a different thought.

What did Schumer accomplish here? He got the ABA to emphasize that Alito has a mainstream judicial temperament as well as a high sense of ethics -- and that an extreme temperament would have damaged his rating from the ABA. But even more damaging, the answer that the ABA "doesn't do politics" slaps at the committee's handling of the hearings and the question of the confirmation itself. Politics shouldn't enter into it for two reasons. The first is that the position should be non-political and would remain so if the Court stuck with an originalist approach to Constitutional issues. Secondly this hearing itself shows the danger of allowing the Court to drift into legislative tasks.

You're Not Your Brothers, Senator Kennedy

Today's hearing wrapped up the testimony of Samuel Alito for his confirmation to the Supreme Court. After a short executive session, the committee came back into public session to take testimony from other witnesses. They began with a remarkable series of judges, colleagues of Judge Alito, who took the unprecedented step of defending their peer from the mudslinging that came from the Judiciary Committee this week.

One of the judges that came forward, and one of the first to testify this afternoon, was Ruggeri Aldisert, whose appointment dates back to the Johnson administration. Aldisert served in the Marine Corps in World War II and has spent 40 years on the bench. Aldisert also reminded the committee about who put him on the federal bench:

ALDISERT: When I first testified before this committee in 1968, I was seeking confirmation of my own nomination to the federal circuit court. I speak now as the I speak now as the most senior judge on the 3rd circuit.

And I begin my brief testimony with some personal background.

ALDISERT: In May 1960, I campaigned with John F. Kennedy in the critical presidential primaries of West Virginia.

The next year, I ran for judge, as was indicated, and I was on the Democratic ticket, and I served eight years as a state trial judge.

And as the chairman indicated, Senator Joseph Clark of Pennsylvania was my chief sponsor when President Lyndon Johnson nominated me to the Court of Appeals, and Senator Robert F. Kennedy from New York was one of my key supporters.

Now, why do I say this? I make this as a point that political loyalties become irrelevant when I became a judge. The same has been true in the case of Judge Alito, who served honorably in two Republican administrations before he was appointed to our court.

Judicial independence is simply incompatible with political loyalties, and Judge Alito's judicial record on our court bears witness to this fundamental truth.

I have been a judge for 45 of my 86 years. And based on my experience, I can represent to this committee that Judge Alito has to be included among the first rank of the 44 judges with whom I have served on the 3rd Circuit, and including another 50 judges on five other courts of appeals on which I have sat since taking senior status.

That contained a pretty unsubtle dig at the man who more than anyone else turned these hearings into a joke and a debacle. Judge Aldisert knew and worked with Ted's older and more accomplished brothers, supporting them and accepting their support when it came to working in politics and rising to the federal bench. In this case, the eighty-six-year-old man with 45 years of judicial experience flew all the way in from California, in an unprecedented show of support for a fellow judge before a Senate committee, just to state categorically that the dissolute younger brother of his political heroes had the nominee all wrong.

It reminds me of the Lloyd Bentsen moment in the VP debate in 1988 with Dan Quayle, when the VP nominee told the eventual VP that he was no John Kennedy. The difference in this case was that Teddy didn't have the guts to face Aldisert, having fled the scene when these witnesses came to the bench -- like almost all of his Democratic colleagues.

CQ On The Air Tonight

I will be appearing on CHQR 770 AM in Calgary and western Canada tonight for Rob Breckinridge's The World Tonight, starting at 9:05 pm ET. We'll be talking about the Alito hearings, the blogging effort that we gave this week in covering the event, some of the more noteworthy points, and Canadian electoral politics as well. Rob's a great radio host and his show is always fun to do as a guest; be sure to tune in, or listen on their Internet stream.

UPDATE: Rob's terrific as always, and he let me ramble on for a good long time. I hope you got a chance to enjoy it, but I do believe they archive The World Tonight if you missed it. It does require a free registration to access the Audio Vault, but it's worth the time and effort. And hey, Stephen Taylor called in -- what better reason to register and check it out?

First Mate Update

The First Mate went back to the hospital as expected today to continue her outpatient care for the viral infection in her kidney. During our vacation, we noticed a marked increase in her blood pressure and she had some trouble keeping up with the pace of the work, but she's a gamer and hung in there every day.

Unfortunately, that rise in BP does have to do with the function of the kidney, but hopefully it will only be temporary. Her doctors warned us that the aggressive treatment would make the function decrease before it would improve. If so, then we have now begun to see this. More disturbing to us was their recommendation that she go back on the transplant list, just in case the treatment doesn't work. That sounded rather ominous, and along with the elevated BP, we aren't too sanguine about the prospects. She may wind up getting admitted if the BP can't get under control soon.

I have to give my thanks to Patrick Ruffini at the RNC, Tim Petty at the SRC, and all of their colleagues for their kind assistance in making sure that she not only was made comfortable but also made to feel utterly welcome for her stay. I'd also like to thank the other bloggers for the same thing -- everyone without exception showed us nothing but kindness.

Al Capone's Vault, Take 2

The Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee wound up looking like the group of boobs that their behavior has demonstrated them to be when the vetting of the William Rusher papers elicited no mention whatsoever of Samuel Alito in connection to Concerned Alumni of Princeton or anything else that could paint him as the bigot that Democrats insinuated he was:

Earlier, the panel's chairman announced that staffers had examined records of a controversial Princeton University alumni group once cited by Alito in a job application, but had found no mention of Alito.

While the alumni group appeared to fizzle out as an issue in the hearings, Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) told Alito that Democrats continue to be disturbed by some of his judicial views, making it "very hard to vote yes on your nomination."

Opening the fourth day of the confirmation hearings, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), the committee chairman, announced the results of a records search that was requested by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) and that triggered the sharpest exchanges of the hearings among senators yesterday.

After tossing around threats yesterday of appealing a non-existent ruling of the chair to get the records subpoenaed, Ted Kennedy didn't even bother to bring up CAP in his third round of questioning today. It didn't stop him from issuing statements that continued to smear Alito through guilt by association today, but somehow the senior bloviator from Massachussetts couldn't screw up the courage to actually try confronting Alito again with the questions while he had the chance.

However, one Democrat may have stumbled onto a solution for the future that will work for everyone. Joe Biden, who in two successive hearings has proven unable to ask a question in less than 1,000 words, has belatedly come to the conclusion that hearings may indeed be a waste of time:

Supreme Court nominees are so mum about the major legal issues at their Senate confirmation hearings that the hearings serve little purpose and should probably be abandoned, Democratic Sen. Joe Biden said Thursday.

"The system's kind of broken," said Biden, a member of the Judiciary Committee considering the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito.

"Nominees now, Democrat and Republican nominees, come before the United States Congress and resolve not to let the people know what they think about the important issues," such as a president's authority to go to war, said Biden.

The blame for that lies squarely with the panel's Democrats. After getting the Roberts nomination last time around, the caucus complained that the administration's predilection for nominating stealth candidates forced them to dig into the background of nominees outside of their judicial experience. They also made clear that conservatives with extensive public records of their standing on issues would face a filibuster, a warning echoed by a handful of moderate Republicans afraid of upsetting Senate "comity". The White House responded by nominating a man with fifteen years of experience on the appellate bench, and even more as a federal prosecutor, all of it exemplary.

How did the Democrats react? By smearing him through the most tenuous of connections to a few stupid articles in a Princeton magazine affiliated with an organization that Alito once belonged before his public work began.

Waiving hearings, under these circumstances, makes for a good suggestion, but let's be clear why that is so. The Democrats on the panel cannot be trusted to act like honest and trustworthy stewards of the nation's business. In fact, most of the time they can't be trusted to act like adults. Joe Biden's suggestion will go a long way to keep that truth from the American people and keep them from playing the part of Geraldo Rivera in Al Capone's vault in the future.

At Long Last, They Have No Shame

I left blogger row yesterday reluctantly, just as the outrageous actions of the Democratic caucus on Judiciary hit its nadir. The smear tactics trotted out to derail the nomination of Judge Alito over the past few weeks had hit their nadir when Ted Kennedy demanded a subpoena for the William Rusher papers to determine whether the National Review publisher may have written something about CAP and Alito. Never mind that this was an entirely off-subject line of questioning from the beginning; Alito's own hiring record proved that he has no animus towards equal opportunity for women or minorities, and the Prospect itself had a woman (Laura Ingraham) and a minority (Dinesh D'Souza) as its editors in chief. Never mind that Alito has had decades of dedicated public service with an impeccable record of excellence, including fifteen years on the appellate court. Never mind that he has not been called before Congress to defend himself on charges but for confirmation to move up to the Supreme Court by invitation of the President.

When what should be a simple confirmation process reduces family members to tears, it shows that one party has degenerated into a secular Inquisition. And let me remind you that it was this party that, on more than one occasion, elected a former Klansman to the post of Majority Leader -- a man who as recently as three years ago defended the use of the "n-word".

In fact, most of the Senators from that caucus are responsible for that election of Byrd to his leadership posts.

I would assume that under their definition, Leahy, Kennedy, Biden, and perhaps Schumer are all racists and genocidists. They're certainly tied much closer to those beliefs than Samuel Alito, and I invite them to explain the difference to the American people.

The Split Widens

The German magazine Der Spiegel reports today on the developing factional rift between the different insurgent groups in Iraq. Increasingly, the native insurgents have concentrated their efforts not against the Americans but against the foreign-based terrorists of al-Qaeda, having belatedly come to the conclusion that the true danger of long-term foreign domination comes from Zarqawi's lunatics:

[T]he split within the insurgency is coinciding with Sunni Arabs' new desire to participate in Iraq's political process, and a growing resentment of the militants. Iraqis are increasingly saying that they regard Al Qaeda as a foreign-led force, whose extreme religious goals and desires for sectarian war against Iraq's Shiite majority override Iraqi tribal and nationalist traditions. ...

According to an American and an Iraqi intelligence official, as well as Iraqi insurgents, clashes between Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia and Iraqi insurgent groups like the Islamic Army and Muhammad's Army have broken out in Ramadi, Husayba, Yusifiya, Dhuluiya and Karmah.

In town after town, Iraqis and Americans say, local Iraqi insurgents and tribal groups have begun trying to expel Al Qaeda's fighters, and, in some cases, kill them.

The cause for much of the local/AQ split comes from the same problems that plagued the Coalition during the war: tactical errors that killed the wrong people at the wrong place, followed by an indifference to local custom for repentance, ie, penalty payments. The AQ faction has added a complete disrespect for the Iraqi tribal system, deliberately targeting tribal chiefs in order to intimidate the other clansmen into at least tacit cooperation. Those tactics backfired on AQ, and now the native insurgents have increasingly focused on ridding themselves of the terrorists before the Americans, or at least have no longer targeted Americans in the effort to do the same.

While the insurgents still have no love for the Americans, the awakening to the dangers of AQ domination have provided some of the impetus for the Sunni to start participating in the democratic processes instead of continuing their insurgency. That development, no matter what the motivation, bodes well for the new Iraqi nation. The realization of what an AQ-approved government would entail will remind even the more incalcitrant Sunnis that democracy provides a much better guarantee of protecting them, and not just from the lunatics of the Islamofascist stripe. They have to live with the peoples they dominated for decades, and the structure of laws and government that the Kurds, Shi'ites, and a handful of Sunnis have built will be their only hope against their certain annihilation in a civil war.

The new Iraq is on its way, and al-Qaeda is facing a humiliating defeat from an ad-hoc alliance of Arabs and Westerners together.

How To Know You're Back In The Twin Cities

The First Mate and I had to rush out of the day's blogging session in the mid-afternoon in order to get to our evening flight on time back home. Despite a bumpy flight, I slept through most of it, which means I have little appetite for sleep now. When I woke up, the flight attendant addressed the cabin:

"On behalf of the captain and crew, I'd like to thank you for flying Northwest Airlines. We know that you have a variety of choices of bankrupt airlines, and we thank you for flying ours."

Yes, that means I'm home.

Senate Blogger Forum: The CAP Trap

Senator Arlen Spector just announced that the William Rusher papers will now be made available to the committee voluntarily by Rusher himself, removing the need for the subpoena that Ted Kennedy demanded. Word around the Capitol has it that the New York Times did an extensive research project on the Rusher papers -- and found absolutely nothing. Kennedy is about to come up with major egg on his face when Rusher's papers turn into Al Capone's vault.

In my mind, it still sets a bad example to use someone else's papers to look for smears on a candidate that has no connection to the owner of the records. Perhaps it's marginally eased by the lack of a subpoena, but the notion that somehow Alito can be disqualified by having read the Prospect or the National Review is exactly what the Democrats have argued against in their opposition to the PATRIOT Act. It's a disgusting way to treat a dedicated public servant.

Senate Blogger Forum: Jon Kyl

Meeting with Jon Kyl of Arizona -- the article that Senator Kyl mentioned on the floor that showed the threat to the ROTC came out in February 1985, which would tend to support Alito's recollection. And all of this is off the point -- "they keep plowing the same old ground," and he's not going to talk about his Constitutional views on open questions.

I asked Senator Kyle about the analogy between Kennedy's request to subpoena the private papers of a man involved in founding CAP and hauling all of the ACLU's records into the committee during Ginsburg's hearing. He agreed with my analogy, and noted that Kennedy would have been the first to decry an invasion of privacy. He also said that those kinds of subpoenas would have a chilling effect on political speech.

Most disappointing part of the process: "The innuendos today ... I can't believe that the motivation of my colleagues is to smear, but it will have that effect."

Kyl expects to see a third round of questioning. He expects some further delaying tactics, although there isn't really any good reason for it. He doesn't see a filibuster, at least not a successful one.

Kyl thinks that Kohl and even Biden have been courteous and professional, and that Feingold might still surprise people and vote for Alito. He doesn't want to comment further on Democrats.

Senate Blogger Forum: Orrin Hatch

I asked Senator Hatch about the shameful performance by Ted Kennedy and the behavior that smacks of McCarthyism. Hatch won't take it that far, but says that smears are the only tools the Democrats have left. "What is the CAP issue all about? Painting Alito as a racist and a sexist. Anyone who has watched him during this hearing knows that's ridiculous."

Hatch on the demand for an executive session: "It's another one of the bush-league approaches for delay."

One of the bloggers asked if Kennedy has a higher ethical standard than the ABA on recusals? "I'm sure he thinks he does. I'll leave it at that."

"He has 5,000 cases on which he's ruled, and this is the best they [Democrats] can do? Vanguard and CAP?"

Senator Hatch believes now that they will have to go to a third round of questioning due to the Democratic attacks that have cropped up today. That means that witnesses who have traveled to DC (for either side) will have to rework their travel arrangements, and the committee will likely have to meet all weekend to get finished. Bill Frist made that clear yesterday; he would not want the hearings to adjourn until the testimony concludes.

He also reminds us that a lot of this posturing has more to do with fund-raising for extremists like the Alliance for Justice and People for the American Way. He can't determine any other strategy except to toss out as much mud as possible and see what sticks.

On Alito as a witness: "I believe he is substantively better than Roberts. ... Roberts was the brilliant good guy next door. Alito has been the brilliant intellectual next door."

On Feingold's attack: "We've always had murder boards, and they're a good idea...These people aren't political, and they have no idea what they're in for." It doesn't mean that people get told what to say, but in how to approach questions from hostile Senators.

Senate Blogger Forum: Kennedy (McCarthy) Redux

I'm not going to live-blog the bloviations from Ted Kennedy in great detail, but I have to add something about Kennedy's pulling out sentences from magazines and newspapers and demanding to know if Alito had ever read them. Isn't this the same kind of treatment that Democrats complain that the PATRIOT Act would do to Americans -- hold them responsible for their reading material? None of this has anything to do with Alito's record as a judge, but because he mentioned the Prospect and National Review as magazines he may have read, now he's being held responsible for every word they have ever published. I read the New York Times, and I hardly agree with anything they write.

Now Kennedy wants to subpoena the records of CAP -- and Specter is getting irate about the attitude of the Senator. Someone needs to explain to Kennedy that subpoenaing the records of a long-defunct group because one disagrees with its political views sets up a very bad precedent. Shall we have subpoenaed all the records of the ACLU during the Ginsburg confirmations? This stinks of Joe McCarthy, another pernicious force who spent far too much time in the Senate soaking up deference while providing nothing but shameful attacks on people who have done nothing to deserve them except give their lives for public service.

Massachussetts should be ashamed of themselves for returning this vacuous boob to represent them in the highest levels of the government.

UPDATE: The transcript from the Kennedy exchange with Alito is in the extended entry.

KENNEDY: So, I want to ask a few things that I hope can clear this up. You have no memory of being a member. You graduated from Princeton in 1972, the same year CAP was founded.

KENNEDY: You called CAP a conservative alumni group. It also published a publication called Prospect, which includes articles by CAP members about the policies that the organization promoted. You're familiar with that?

ALITO: I don't recall seeing the magazine. I might have seen...

KENNEDY: Did you know that they had a magazine?

ALITO: I've learned of that in recent weeks.

KENNEDY: So a 1983 Prospect essay titled In Defense of Elitism, stated, quote, People nowadays just don't seem to know their place. Everywhere one turns, blacks and Hispanics are demanding jobs simply because they're black and Hispanic. The physically handicapped are trying to gain equal representation in professional sports. And homosexuals are demanding the government vouchsafe them the right to bear children.

Did you read that article?

FEINSTEIN: Finish the last line.

KENNEDY: Finish the last line -- is, and homosexuals are...

FEINSTEIN: No, And now here come women.

KENNEDY: If the senator will let me just...

FEINSTEIN: Yes, I will...

(LAUGHTER)

KENNEDY: Can I get two more minutes from my friend from...

(LAUGHTER)

Just to continue along. I apologize, Judge. Did you read this article?

ALITO: I feel confident that I didn't. I'm not familiar with the article, and I don't know the context in which those things were said. But they are antithetical...

KENNEDY: Well, could you think of any context that they could be...

ALITO: Hard to imagine. If that's what anybody was endorsing, I disagree with all of that. I would never endorse it. I never have endorsed it. Had I thought that that's what this organization stood for I would never associate myself with it in any way.

KENNEDY: The June '84 edition of Prospect magazine contains a short article on AIDS. I know that we've come a long way since then in our understanding of the disease, but even for that time the insensitivity of statements in this article are breathtaking. It announces that a team of doctors has found the AIDS virus in the rhesus monkeys was similar to the virus occurring in human beings.

KENNEDY: And the article then goes on with this terrible statement: Now that the scientists must find humans, or rather homosexuals, to submit themselves to experimental treatment. Perhaps Princeton's Gay Alliance may want to hold an election.

You didn't read that article?

ALITO: I feel confident that I didn't, Senator, because I would not have anything to do with statements of that nature.

KENNEDY: In 1973, a year after you graduated, and during your first year at Yale Law School, former Senator Bill Bradley very publicly disassociated himself with CAP because of its right-wing views and unsupported allegations about the university. His letter of resignation was published in The Prospect; garnered much attention on campus and among the alumni. Were you aware of that at the time that you listed the organization in your application?

ALITO: I don't think I was aware of that until recent weeks when I was informed of it.

KENNEDY: And in 1974, an alumni panel including now-Senator Frist unanimously concluded that CAP had presented a distorted, narrow, hostile view of the university. Were you aware of that at the time of the job application?

ALITO: I was not aware of that until very recently.

KENNEDY: In 1980, the New York Times article about the coeducation of Princeton, CAP is described as an organization against the admittance of women. In 1980, you were working as an assistant U.S. attorney in Trenton, New Jersey.

KENNEDY: Did you read the New York Times? Did you see this article?

ALITO: I don't believe that I saw the article.

KENNEDY: And did you read a letter from CAP mailed in 1984 -- this is the year before you put CAP on your application -- to every living alumni -- to every living alumni, so I assume you received it -- which declared: Princeton is no longer the university you knew it to be.

As evidence, among other reasons, it cited the fact that admission rates for African-Americans and Hispanics were on the rise, while those of alumni children were failing and Princeton's president at a time urged that the then all-male eating clubs to admit females.

And in December 1984, President William Bowen responded by sending his own letter. This is the president of Princeton responded by sending his own letter to all of the alumni in which he called CAP's letter callous and outrageous.

This letter was the subject of a January 1985 Wall Street Journal editorial congratulating President Bowen for engaging his critics in a free and open debate.

This would be right about the time that you told Senator Kyl you probably joined the organization.

Did you receive the Bowen letter or did you read the Wall Street Journal, which was pretty familiar reading for certainly a lot of people that were in the Reagan administration?

ALITO: Senator, I've testified to everything that I can recall relating to this, and I do not recall knowing any of these things about the organization. And many of the things that you've mentioned are things that I have always stood against. In your description of the letter that prompted President Bowen's letter, there's talk about returning the Princeton that used to be. There's talk about eating clubs, about all-male eating clubs. There's talk about the admission of alumni children. There's opposition to opening up the admissions process. None of that is something that I would identify with.

I was not the son of an alumnus. I was not a member of an eating club. I was not a member of an eating facility that was selective. I was not a member of an all-male eating facility. And I would not have identified with any of that.

If I had received any information at any point regarding any of the matters that you have referred to in relation to this organization, I would never have had anything to do with it.

KENNEDY: You think these are conservative views?

ALITO: Senator, whatever I knew about this organization in 1985, I identified as conservative. I don't identify those views as conservative.

What I do recall as an issue that bothered me in relation to the Princeton administration as an undergraduate and continuing into the 1980s was their treatment of the ROTC unit and their general attitude toward the military, which they did not treat with the respect that I thought was deserving. The idea of that it was beneath Princeton to have an ROTC unit on campus was an offensive idea to me.

KENNEDY: Just moving on, you mentioned -- and I only have a few minutes left -- you joined CAP because of your concern about keeping ROTC on campus. ROTC was a fairly contentious issue on Princeton campus in the early 1970s. The program was slated to be terminated in 1970, when you were an undergraduate. By 1973, one year after you graduated, ROTC had returned to campus and was no longer a source of debate.

And from what I can tell, by 1985, it was basically a dead issue. In fact, my staff reviewed the editions of Prospects from 1983 to 1985 and can only find one mention of ROTC. And it appears in a 1985 issue released for homecoming that year that says: ROTC is popular once again. Here's the Prospect, 1985: ROTC is popular again. This is just about the time that you were submitting this organization in your job application.

ALITO: Senator, if I...

KENNEDY: So...

ALITO: I'm sorry.

KENNEDY: But the -- briefly, please.

ALITO: It's my recollection that this was a continuing source of controversy. There were people on the campus -- members of the faculty, as I recall -- who wanted the unit removed from the campus. There was certainly controversy about whether students could get credit for courses, which I believe was a military requirement for the maintenance of the unit.

There was controversy, as I recall, about the status of the instructors; whether they could be given any kind of a status in relation to the faculty. I don't know the exact dates, but it's my recollection that this was a continuing source of controversy.

KENNEDY: Well, Mr. Chairman, my time is running out. I had wanted to just wind up on a few more brief questions on this. But I have to say that Judge Alito -- that his explanations about the membership in this, sort of, radical group, and why you listed it on your job application, are extremely troubling. And, in fact, I don't think that they add up.

Senate Blogger Forum: Day 3 Arrival (Update And Reconsideration)

Please see the update below.

When we arrived today at the Dirksen Office Building, we saw a disturbance outside the entrance -- and I turned to the First Mate and groaned, "Oh, man, we're going to have to push through some protestors." To my surprise, the protest turned out to be a pro-Alito rally, with most of the people wearing red shirts and chanting pro-Alito messages.

It struck me as somewhat odd, though well intentioned. Chanting slogans just amounts to tribalism or cheerleading. I would have been more impressed by someone standing on a ladder, stating why Alito should be confirmed. Chanting "Alito" in a song first written about a dog named Bingo invites itself to satire, and deservedly so.

It's great that conservatives get together to rally themselves and generate enthusiasm and energy. However, when the world is watching, we should take care to use that opportunity to show that we are the party of ideas and not just sloganeering.

UPDATE: We met with the group that staged this rally later in the morning. They belong to a group called TeenPact, and they are a group of very bright and articulate high-school students. They each gave a one-minute speech, which they delivered well and with good affect. It's terrific to see young people come so far -- from every state in the union -- to participate in any way in this process.

Lesson: dig a little deeper next time, a good lesson to learn.

UPDATE II and BUMP: One of the young women in the program is Ms. Emily Echols, who sued the FEC and won a Supreme Court decision 9-0 allowing minors to contribute to political campaigns. She is now 17 years old and wants to pursue politics. I asked for a show of hands on how many bloggers there were, and I'd say that we're looking at 75%. Outstanding!

Senate Blogger Forum: Former Alito Clerks, Group 2

We've begun to meet with three more of Judge Alito's former law clerks: Jeff Wasserstein, a liberal Democrat who also reads CQ -- and so is one of my favorites thus far -- David Moore, and Keith Levenburg. Mr. Levenburg starts off by talking about the benefit of adding Alito to the Supreme Court as he is not ideologically driven, and has a broad understanding of business law. Mr. Moore says that ideology is not something he brings to his chambers. He fully considers the facts before reaching his decisions.

In a fascinating coincidence, the three served Alito during various partisan crises: Bush v Gore, the Iraq War, and the Monica Lewinsky scandal. All three said that Alito never revealed his thoughts or feelings on a partisan basis, although the clerks themselves felt free to express themselves in social settings around the judge.

Mr. Levenberg does not see a lack of private practice being a problem at the appellate level. In fact, adding someone who has served as a US attorney adds another dimension to the Court. The three also note that Alito has taught on terror-related law, and remarked that it is hard to overestimate the broad knowledge of legal arenas in which Alito qualifies as an expert.

The most disappointing part of the process? The smear tactics used by Democrats on the CAP and Vanguard issues. While Wasserstein tends to give the Senators a pass -- "politicians are politicians" -- he says he will stop supporting some groups based on their disingenuity. Mr. Moore notes that the same politicians who complain that Alito isn't giving answers won't stop talking long enough to ask questions.

Senate Blogger Forum: Round 2, Specter

The second round of questioning for the Alito hearing has already begun with Arlen Specter starting off with the shortened 20-minute timeslice, where the prizes double and the game can get really exciting. Oh, sorry, that's Double Jeopardy. This second round will likely focus on the same questions that came up in the first round, as Pat Leahy's comments at the beginning of today's festivities indicate:

Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee said Wednesday they were troubled by what they see as inconsistencies in Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito's answers on issues ranging from voting rights to ethics to his membership in a conservative organization.

On the third day of confirmation hearings, Sen. Patrick Leahy (news, bio, voting record) of Vermont said Democrats would press President Bush's choice to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on several statements he made in his earlier testimony.

"A number of us have been troubled by what see as inconsistencies in some of the answers," Leahy told Alito.

In other words, Leahy called Alito a liar. Since Senator Lindsay Graham noted yesterday that Congress has no rule against beating dead horses, we can look forward to absolutely nothing changing in the second round.

It started off with a moment of humor, when Specter asked Alito if the courts' reasoning power and methodology have any superiority over those of Congress. When Alito expressed his utmost respect for Congress's reasoning power, Specter asked him if he still believed that after the last two days of the hearing. As the laughter subsided, Alito still affirmed his position, which led Orrin Hatch to proclaim his "disappointment" in the nominee. ...

Senate Blogger Forum: Senator Grassley

We've been joined by Senator Chuck Grassley, a member of the committee, to give us his views on the progress of the hearings.

The demeanor of the Democrats have surprised the newspeople, particularly since they don't seem to be getting the traction they wanted against Alito. Alito is so qualified that Grassley has never seen a nominee with this level of experience. That may have caused the Democrats to turn their demeanor to a more reserved level.

Grassley met with Alito in November ... He is sincered, and he will wait until the last fact is laid before him before making a judgment. He's doing exactly what we expect judges to do -- react mildly and patiently to argument and respond thoughtfully and with an open mind.

Grassley says Alito will be confirmed ...

The incivility that comes at an honest, decent man like Alito distubs Grassley. America has to become a more civil society. Grassley notes all of the different kinds of abuses, and says that our justice system has to have its basis on respect for individuals. That's a great point; all forms of liberty base themselves on the unique nature of, and recognition for, the individual.

Grassley had nine town meetings last week, and in half of them he assured them that Alito would be confirmed.

About Leahy's remarks: Grassley interprets them as a show of effort to demonstrate that the radical Democrats have not yet given up.

Grassley says we might lose a moderate Republican or two, but we should pick up a few moderate Democrats in response.

How can we fix this problem of partisanship? Grassley says the abuse of the "hold" in Senate has to be reined in. The secrecy of the hold is one problem -- "anyone who puts on a hold should have the guts to show himself". The hold allows for a buildup of partisanship which spills over into other processes, like confirmation hearings. ...

Grassley says that he thinks the pressure for the filibuster has receded. My feeling after talking with a number of the committee members and their staffs is that the filibuster has all but disappeared. Alito has performed too well to pull it off without damaging Democrats in the next election.

UPDATE: Alito will be confirmed. Roberts has already been confirmed. That was my mistake, not the Senator's. While he was talking, I was typing a bit behind and he mentioned a comparison between the two hearings.

Senate Blogger Forum: Day 3 Live Blog - Durbin, Brownback

Dick Durbin gets to start things off, and he starts by going into Brown v Board of Education and Griswold, saying that both rely on interpretations of the Constitution.

9:36 - He misstates Schumer's question. Schumer asked if Alito believed in a Constitutional right to an abortion. It's a small but important distinction. Alito notes that Brown is based on specific language in the 14th Amendment, and that Griswold isn't likely to come before the Court again. Abortion does not come up explicitly in the Constitution and will definitely come before the Court again. Durbin still doesn't seem to get it ...

9:47 - Durbin says that the government wants to "discourage" abortions, and reserve it for women whose lives are in danger. If we've had over 40 million women's lives in danger in 32 years, then America's females should escape our borders as soon as possible. As far as it being rare, what other medical procedures have been performed 40 million times over 32 years? Nose jobs?

9:55 - We moved from CAP and Alito's supposed animus against women and minorities to Bruce Springsteen to racial issues in the justice system. Durbin's segue is pretty lame ...

9:59 - Alito has to explain to Durbin that appellate courts should not revisit findings of fact in a case involving a plaintiff with limited mental capacity alleging sexual attacks -- and that the primary court issued a summary judgement for the defendant.

10:03 - More "crushing hand of fate" from Durbin, but Alito pops him at the end for cherry-picking the cases.

Thank goodness Durbin's off the air. The problem with the end of the first round is that it's mostly a replay of all the other Democratic inquisitions.

10:13 - Brownback pulls out the same displays he used for the Roberts hearing to show that Plessy was also a super-precedent, one that existed for 60 years.

10:16 - It's been five minutes since the last question. Brownback just wants to use his time to make speeches about abortion.

10:28 - Brownback gave Alito a great opening on religious freedom, talking about the case of a schoolchild whose depiction of Jesus got removed even though it fit within the parameters of an assignment he was given. Alito notes that when a school asks a question like "What are you thankful for?", it cannot restrict the speech of the students' responses based on their religion.

Alito 1, Schumer -35

I wish I had an automatic transcript device. Judge Alito just blew Chuck Schumer out of the water on abortion. After holding up his Robert Byrd^TM mini-Constitution, Schumer demanded several times whether he still believes as he wrote in his 1985 memo that he doesn't think abortion has Constitutional protection. Alito demurred each time, saying that he would have to weigh each case in light of its facts and its reliance on precedence. Like the bad lawyer he has proven himself to be, Schumer asked one question too many:

SCHUMER: Does the Constitution protect the right to free speech?

ALITO: Certainly it does. That's in the First Amendment.

SCHUMER: So why can't you answer the question of: Does the Constitution protect the right to an abortion the same way without talking about stare decisis, without talking about cases, et cetera?

ALITO: Because answering the question of whether the Constitution provides a right to free speech is simply responding to whether there is language in the First Amendment that says that the freedom of speech and freedom of the press can't be abridged. Asking about the issue of abortion has to do with the interpretation of certain provisions of the Constitution.

SCHUMER: Well, OK. I know you're not going to answer the question…

Case closed. It's like watching the Washington Generals play the Harlem Globetrotters.

UPDATE: I corrected this with the updated transcript, which only differs in the vocabulary used. This transctipt wass provided by Barbara Ledeen.

RNC Blogger Forum: Day 2 Live Blog, Feingold

I've been watching the testimony on Alito most of the day, or at least in between visits from the luminaries I've highlighted so far today. Most of this has been rather inconsequential, except possibly for the Kennedy portion (transcript here). Kennedy remains in his usual bloviating status, full of sound and fury signifying dementia. However, Russ Feingold slipped over the transom to outright insulting -- perhaps most egregiously because he doesn't present such a ridiculous figure as Kennedy obviously cuts. Feingold did everything but call Alito a puppet mouthing the words of his White House masters.

Alito got mad for the first time, managing to keep it under control, but protested that he had been a judge for fifteen years and he didn't need anyone to feed him answers to anyone's questions.

Feingold responded by changing the subject ... to Vanguard. What a jerk.

RNC Blogger Forum: Alito's Contemporaries

Former Attorney General Robert Del Tufo employed Samuel Alito as a prosecutor. He said that Alito distinguished himself as a litigator as well as a researcher and preparer of briefs. His work consisted of working on organized-crime and white-collar fraud, work that requires the management of teams to get anything accomplished. Del Tufo prosecuted two Russian spies, and Alito did some interesting work in handling questions of diplomatic immunity. He certainly handled some high-profile cases.

Since then, Del Tufo has been practicing law in the private sector but has followed Alito's career closely. "His approach to issues demonstrates his scholarship, doing the research, studying the law to see how it pertains to the issue before him, and using it in a thoughtful way," he says. "Labels don't mean anything with Alito." Del Tufi says careful is a good word in describing Alito, as well as a "fine human being." Del Tufo believes in these times, it is critical to have people of Alito's balance and intellect on the Court.

Professor J.L. Pottenger is a clinical teacher; he represents clients, and his students practice together with him on his cases. Attacks on Alito's character motivated this "liberal Democrat" to come to DC to work on Alito's behalf. He believes that the processes now in place during the confirmation have eviscerated the distinction between law and politics and also believes that to be a dangerous development.

As an ethicist, Pottenger says it would surprise him if the ABA would give a unanimous "well-qualified" rating if any question remained at all about Vanguard. Both he and Del Tufo noted that 300 judges reviewed Alito and came to the conclusion that he had the highest ethics.

How to fix it? Del Tufo emphasizes the need to hold our elected officials responsible for their behavior. Pottenger agreed but says the problem lies with the amount of power we have invested in the courts to make our decisions for us, rather than making legislatures tackle the difficult questions. I agree with both of them -- and that's why, as I have repeatedly argued, originalism gives us the only way out of the box. Originalism will not outlaw abortion, but vacating Roe (as but one example) returns abortion to the legislatures as a policy issue to be solved by the people via a consensus.

By the way, just to give you a taste of this segment, it's hard to imagine any more gravitas in one panel than these two men brought to the room. They were most impressive and very gracious indeed.

RNC Blogger Forum: Alito's Clerks

We had a chance after meeting with Senator Hatch to talk with three former Alito clerks and get their reactions to the attacks on their former boss. Jeff Gottlieb, a Democrat, thinks that the attacks have been effectively defused. When asked if the attacks were fair, Gottlieb says, "Probably not, no."

Reg Brown, a former White House staffer, says the attacks may wind up working to Alito's benefit. "Now, there's an air or presumption of untruth [to attack reports]," due to the wild nature of what they're alleging. Michael Park, another Alito clerk, says that the thin nature of these issues show that Alito can't be challenged on his qualifications, job performance, and judicial temperament.

Brown: "When Bork was nominated, they attacked Robert Bork's America," he notes, but now they can't attack conservatism itself as before.

Jeff Lord, author of The Borking Revolution: "We know now how this works: the ethics charges, followed by the race charges."

Abigail Thermstrom notes that the President learned to never nominate another Robert Bork. "Robert Bork did his best to get defeated," she says, contrasting him with Clarence Thomas, who never invited the treatment he received.

Dana Douglas: "He was a fabulous mentor ... a great experience ... he was very open to mentoring women and minorities. ... It was one of the greatest experiences in my life."

When asked whether they'd like to get nominated for the Court sometime in their profession, they all thought that being a judge would be great, but the process of becoming a judge would certainly give them pause. Isn't that a shame -- we're spending our time pillorying the best of the people we have. What kind of people will we eventually find left to take these jobs when they come up?

Dana Douglas worries that the real Sam Alito may not come through. "He should smile more," Douglas advises. "He's really a very nice man."

UPDATE: Reg Brown dropped me a nice note reminding me that he is a former White House staffer -- actually, as I recall (without prompting), he's a former Assistant Counsel, more senior than the generic "staffer" might suggest. And, by the way, a great guy to meet!

RNC Blogger Forum: Senator Orrin Hatch

2:14 - If the Democrats were as interested in fighting terror as they are in fighting Alito, we'd all be safe.

2:16 - Very pleased with Alito's performance; says his demeanor and performance ranks up there with John Roberts.

2:17 - Kennedy and Biden blew the Vanguard issue out of all proportion. He reminded us that the agreement was that Alito would recuse himself from cases in the initial period of his service.

2:20 - Hatch, like Frist, expects a party-line vote.

2:22 - Abortion is the be-all, end-all issue that provides the main identity for Democrats.

2:27 - Hatch says the GOP is ready to counter a filibuster with the Constitutional option. He hopes that the Senate would move away from treating the Supreme Court nominations through a partisan filter. Republicans accepted Breyer and Ginsburg overwhelmingly because they were qualified, regardless of their personal beliefs. He recalled when the Democrats released medical records to smear Rehnquist.

2:32 - Do we just resign ourselves to this kind of partisanship? Hatch says it took us 40 years to take over the majority, and the Democrats don't know how to be in the minority. On the other hand, the GOP often doesn't know how to act like a majority, either. Hatch reminds us that the Senate rules require working across the aisle to get anything done at all. With the Democrats not offering much of anything as a legislative agenda, it makes negotiations difficult.

2:38 - We need 60 Republicans who can stand together, and we could change the world.

2:42 - "Principled conservatives with brains can win anywhere."

2:43 - Abramoff: "Not a good Republican ... I don't know what he was thinking."

2:45 - Hatch is not a fan of the BCRA. "That's gotta be one of the worst bills in history." It takes the money out of the hands of the parties, which can be held accountable for their actions, and into the hands of those who can avoid the accountability.

2:48 - Civil-Rights Act: The effects-test in section II has caused a number of problems with electoral processes. Hatch knew it would turn the South Republican through ridiculous redistricting but fought against it. Abigail Thermstrom joined us without us realizing it and spoke to Hatch's leading work on trying to get the CRA correct. She wants the penalty provisions of the bill lifted from the Act; "It's not 1965 any more, and Bull Connor is dead." (Thurston is the vice-chair of the Civil Rights Commission.)

2:54 - Mitt Romney: "An absolutely brilliant administrator ... what you see is what you get." Hatch points out that, like himself, Romney is Mormon; Hatch filed for the 2000 Presidential race in part to clear a path for Romney.

RNC Blogger Forum: Operation Outcry

We got a visit from Operation Outcry, which represents 1900 women who have come forward after having had an abortion and regretted it afterwards. They have arrived at the Capitol to support Alito and other jurists that rule on law instead of policy. They don't base their support on any presumed promise of Alito overturning Roe, but just their belief that he will rule on Constitutional issues on the basis of the law.

Julie Thomas, Georgia - National Leader: spoke about her personal experience with abortion and how it impacted her family life. She says that women are deceived into having abortions by the demeaning of the foetus as something other than human, and tell them that it won't have any emotional impact on their lives. She says that their guilt drives them to destructive behavior later in life as they run away from their pain and shame.

Mark Noonan noted that it's difficult for a man to debate abortion. Anne Newman talks about a man who came to join them because his girlfriend had aborted their child, and then committed suicide. On the other hand, men will gladly counterdemonstrate against these women, shouting them down and calling them "sluts". She also notes that women don't necessarily choose freely to have an abortion, but come under tremendous pressure from husbands/boyfriends, family, and social contacts to get rid of the "problem" the easiest way they see.

They are expanding their organization to Europe and beyond. They want to stop the damage that abortions do. One woman talked about the missing grandchildren, nieces, nephews, that will never attend family functions; her abortions caused too much damage for her to have any children later in life.

If you've never heard of them before, it's because the media will often cover the event but then never publish the stories. It seems to me that any ideas about consensus on abortion, as The Nation supposes exists on its unfettered legalization, discounts the honest experiences of these women. Read their website and give them the respect of being heard.

RNC Blogger Forum: Senator John Cornyn

11:20 - Senator John Cornyn, TX. So far, hearings have gone well, done a good job of laying out his family history. Observing the Ginsburg standard, he should reserve his judgment on specific issues, but he has answered questions extensively. Good common-sense answers have shown Alito obviously well-qualified for the position.

11:22 - Bloggers force the MSM to deal with "inconvenient facts"; we're making a difference in coverage, which he feels is critical.

11:23 - Historically, presidential nominees have had the presumption of confirmability. Democrats want to change that to a presumption of non-confirmability, which sets up a double standard for Bush's nominees.

11:26 - This is turning into a trial, with everyone playing cross-examiner.

11:27 - Almost all of the Democratic resistance is fund-raising; Schumer is the chair of the DSCC and can't afford to do anything but obstruct.

11:28 - The process isn't designed to elicit information; it's designed to make speeches.

11:32 - Senator Cornyn thinks that Specter's focus on abortion in the first round has to do more with defusing tough issues. His own strategy will be to deconstruct the notion of Alito as an alleged supporter of an imperial presidency.

11:36 - O'Connor was a critic of Roe, saying that Casey was a stopgap designed to get around the bad law analysis in Roe. Wait for Cornyn to attack the "bogus construct".

11:38 - Cornyn would like to have seen a woman appointed to the position, and he thinks that Bush will have at least one more opportunity. He's more concerned with the excellent qualifications that Alito has for the job. He will also bring up the ABA treatment of the Vanguard issue, showing its empty nature.

RNC Blogger Forum: Senator Bill Frist

10:10 - Senator Frist has dropped in for a visit ...

10:13 - Blogs can help explain the procedural issues and questions that come up.

10:14 - Alito deserves a "fair and dignified hearing, and then a fair up-or-down vote". Nature of politics is that we can expect some protest, but that we keep the process moving. He will use "all the tools", but believes it "premature" to speak to the specifics of those tools at this point. Democrats will pull out "old ways" to defeat progress in America, and says we'll get some hints this week. More obstruction through procedural tools will arise - not necessarily filibusters, but slowdowns and postponements.

10:18 - The hold on Brett Kavanaugh: Senator Frist says he can't comment on the record at the moment for that, but he will likely address the process of "holds" in the coming year.

10:19 - Frist says they will be looking at lobbying reform, but also procedural reform, this session. The lobbying reform will probably come up with entirely new laws rather than tougher enforcement and expansion of existing laws.

10:20 - Frist thinks we'll get the confirmation vote by the 20th of this month.

10:21 - He will NOT take a position on the House leadership races. [Big laugh]

10:28 - Senator Frist confirms for me that no one who got briefed on the NSA intercept has, to his knowledge demanded an end to this program. He confirmed that he was one of the leaders briefed on the program over the years. When I asked him if the program had stopped attacks on this country, he immediately and unequivocally said, "Yes."

10:31 - Should not read anything into Frank Lautenberg's intro of Samuel Alito to the committee. He doesn't think that necessarily commits Lautenberg to supporting Alito.

10:33 - Speaks to the legislative priorities facing the Senate and the impact that postponement will have on it. The PATRIOT Act: The current bill has stronger protections than the previous bill, so "killing" it is an act of irresponsibility. The Senator wanted an extension to get that better bill eventually adopted.

10:39 - I asked if any Democratic legislative agenda exists to use as leverage, and Senator Frist says no -- which puts him at a disadvantage in terms of leverage, but demonstrates the lack of ideas and energy coming from the Democrats.

11:04 - We missed most of Leahy and Hatch, but getting access to this information was well worth it. I want to make sure that we emphasize that Senator Frist was one of the eight leaders of Congress getting briefed on the NSA program, and that we have stopped attacks on America as a result of this effort. That is not hypothetical.

RNC Blogger Forum: Day 2 Live Blog, Specter & Leahy

9:36 - Alito has already agreed with Griswold and Eisenstadt, and now speaks to the generalities of stare decisis and the specific of "reliance". It sounds like he's going to take the same position as Roberts did. Specter keeps cutting off his answers, but Alito is remaining firm that the Court should not "sway in the wind of public opinion at any time," but stay focused on the law.

9:46 - "Super precedent" as a term is like laundry detergent. Specter meanwhile pulls out the same chart he used in the Roberts hearing to argue for upholding Roe.

9:49 - Alito emphasizes that he has to put aside the work he did as an attorney and an advocate once he puts on the judge's robes. Alito notes that he held the view that the Constitution did not hold a right to an abortion in 1985, but his views at this point are immaterial.

9:55 - It looks like Alito has run the abortion gauntlet with Specter. This appears to have been one of the "subtle minuets" that got mentioned in yesterday's hearing. Specter ran through the questions rather quickly after hearing the components of answers that made Alito appear most moderate on the question. An old prosecutor himself, I expect that Specter knew exactly what answers he would get from Alito -- yet another indication that Specter is back on the reservation.

10:00 - The memo on presidential powers gets the last part of Specter's attention. Alito talked about the fact that the memo was a rough draft for an advocacy position, and that the advocates had a responsibility to pursue all hypotheticals before signing off on an opinion.

10:04 - Leahy says "We'll have the chance to listen to you." Not hardly, if the Roberts hearing gives any indication.

10:10 - Senator Frist has dropped in for a visit ... (moved section to new post.)

Did The Tories' Lead Jump To Double Digits?

A poll showing that the Conservative Party extended their lead to double digits over the plummeting Liberals was deliberately withheld from the Canadian public as the pollster expanded the sample, the Ottawa Citizen reports this morning. The Toronto Star and Montreal's La Presse pulled publication of the poll in order to keep it from being public knowledge before the English-language debate last night:

Two major newspapers and a pollster decided to sit on the results of a weekend poll that showed a double-digit breakthrough by the Conservatives over the Liberals because they felt it would be irresponsible to release the "stunning" numbers on the day of the English debate.

Calling it a "difficult decision," Frank Graves, the president of Ekos Research Associates, said he and his media clients, the Toronto Star and Montreal's La Presse, agreed to do further polling yesterday to increase the sample size to 1,200 respondents. He confirmed the weekend findings -- from a sample of 500 calls -- indicated Stephen Harper and the Conservatives were on their way to forming a majority government similar to the ones enjoyed by Brian Mulroney in 1984 and Jean Chretien in 1993.

"In a normal setting we would have released it, but in the context of a 500-case poll with the results we had in last night, we didn't think it would be responsible on the day of the debate," Mr. Graves said.

By waiting an extra day and polling an additional 700 respondents, the margin of error falls to 2.9 percentage points, 19 times out of 20, from plus or minus 4.5 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

The newspapers did not release the results from the smaller sample yesterday because they planned to publish the results from the larger sample today.

That poll, now published by the Star today, shows that the Tories may well capture a majority of seats in the next Parliament and rule alone. It shows that Stephen Harper has led his party to a 39.1% - 26.8% lead over the currently governing Liberals, led by a badly faltering Paul Martin. Anything over 40% usually indicates an impending majority for the triumphal party, thanks to the unusual dynamics of four-party politics.

This news should have come out yesterday. The act of withholding it from the public to recast the sample to something different than they normally use shows at least a possibility of bias from the newspapers involved. What about those numbers frightened the newspapers? The editors should answer the critics and hold themselves accountable for a strange decision indeed. (Thanks to CQ reader Tom B)

RNC Blogger Forum: The Meaning Of Consensus

We're watching C-SPAN ahead of the start of the hearings this morning, and Bruce Shapiro of The Nation is appearing for call-in questions -- and not surprisingly, he's coming up with some eyerolling pronouncements. When a self-confessed former "radical feminist" made the excellent point that since half of the American people describe themselves as "pro-life", it hardly puts Alito out of the mainstream if he has the same beliefs. She challenged Shapiro to respond as to why his magazine and the Left react so hysterically whenever a pro-life candidate comes up for confirmation. Shapiro responded that he wouldn't want a jurist to rise to the Supreme Court that would throw out decades of "consensus".

Consensus? The entire problem with Roe is that it kept abortion from going through the political process to reach some sort of consensus. It froze the argument in amber by making it an absolute right -- more absolute than free political speech after the BCRA, for instance. No one who has lived through the abortion debate can possibly imagine that America has had any consensus on this issue. What the argument for judicial originalism begs is to return the issue and others like it to the legislature where it belongs. Vacating Roe would not make abortion illegal; it would force the legislatures to grapple with the question as the representatives of the people, and to reach the consensus that Shapiro imagines exists now.

Talk about missing the forest for the trees!

Matt Richtel, Call Your Editor

It's not often that a newspaper reporter gets to cover a public event, ridicule his subject matter, and still have his copy published in the New York Times. (At least, not when it's about something other than the Bush administration.) Matt Richtel got his big chance today when he reported from Las Vegas on the 23rd annual adult-film awards, the AVNs. Richtel gives the awards the serious treatment they deserve:

Saturday night, though, was an unapologetic, hearty celebration, with a flashbulb-drenched red carpet entrance and awards presented in 104 categories, including best performances in a wide range of explicit acts and sexual positions. The more conventional were for best director, supporting actor and actress, screenplay and the most anticipated award of the evening: best feature.

That went to "Pirates," a relatively high-budget story of a group of ragtag sailors who go searching for a crew of evil pirates who have a plan for world domination. Also, many of the characters in the movie have sex with one another.

Evan Stone, the stage name of the man who won the award for best actor as the good ship's captain, said a crucial component of the movie's success was its authenticity. A consultant instructed the cast on proper ship etiquette, he said, like never letting the captain steer the vessel, a job that belongs to the first mate. ...

[C]ertain things rule out a nomination. One is "if you can still hear the director's voice," Mr. Fishbein said. Another no-no is "if it's clear the cameraman is not paying attention." ...

Ms. Daniels, who said she wished people would stop judging one another, does have her own pet peeve: tired plots.

"There's nothing worse then when the pizza boy rings the doorbell, the girl says she doesn't have a tip, and then they get it on," she said. Ms. Daniels also won an award for best screenplay for a parody, "Camp Cuddly Pines Power Tool Massacre," which presumably had a storyline more in keeping with her tastes.

If you need an extended edition of snark with your morning tea, be sure to catch Richtel's coverage of the AVNs; it's hilarious. And someone should ask his editor why Richtel got the fun assignment this year.

The Leaders Debate, And Yell, And Scream ...

While I'm traveling in DC, I presupposed that I would not necessarily get a chance to follow the flow of Canadian politics during my absence from home. Fortunately and by chance, the hotel offers C-SPAN2 and I happened to catch the Leaders Debate, about which John from Newsbeat1 reminded me earlier today. I started watching this around a half-hour ago, and it's just now wrapping up with closing comments. The only word I can use to describe what I'm watching is debacle, especially as it relates to Gilles Duceppe and Paul Martin.

The Montreal forum gave all four candidates to show their best side to their fellow Canadians. Instead, Martin and Duceppe acted like neighbors on the verge of a feud, with a glum-faced Duceppe almost spitting in disgust whenever he denounced the actions of the Liberals and Paul Martin, who reacted with hilarious facial expressions right out of bad vaudeville stage acting, hand-wringing, and wildly exaggerated gestures. The Liberal leader bobbed and weaved more than Mike Tyson at any time of his career, and I'm not sure why; did he think that being on television meant he had to constantly be in motion? For a couple of moments, I had to turn down the TV while I spoke on the phone, and the combination of the two party leaders looked like comedy.

That performance automatically made Stephen Harper and Jack Layton look good. However, Layton had put himself in an untenable position by taking a deal with the same Liberals that he accused of checkbook politics, where the NDP got an amendment on more spending for their priorities in exchange for not supporting a no-confidence motion in May that kept the Liberals in power. That made it easy to laugh at the uptight and somewhat prissy NDP leader when he accused the Tories of being in bed with the Liberals by trying to outbid them for voters. Jack Layton managed to sell out Canada in May to make kingmakers out of the NDP. S

The only one who did well, mostly, was Harper. He stayed above the fray as much as possible, and remanied above the bickering of the others. I think it turned out to be a overall win for the much-maligned CPC leaders.

RNC Blogger Forum: Surprise Visitors

In the afternoon session, the RNC moved us from their offices in a tony section of DC to an even tonier hotel, the Hay-Adams, to continue meeting with various strategists and political players inside the GOP. Being from out of town, I had no idea what a nice place the Hay-Adams was. As I explained to Patrick Ruffini, I'm more used to hotel employees holding doors to kick me out to the street than to welcome me inside. Nor was that the only surprise the RNC had in store for us.

At the end of a series of meetings with strategists, we met with the most senior strategist one can find in the White House: Karl Rove. He spent quite a bit of time with us discussing different issues, but we did promise to keep the specifics off the record. I can tell CQ readers that Mr. Rove comes across as warm, engaging, thoroughly knowledgeable, and very gracious. He knew most of our blogs well, and hoped to come up to speed on the rest. He teased me about not being Canadian -- I think I can reveal that much -- and he also mentioned that CQ has a spot on his browser favorites, along with Red State and Town Hall.

He spent most of his time answering our questions rather than coming with a speech, and being mindful that bloggers get few opportunities for this kind of access, we talked quite a bit with him and his staff about the general politics of the war, the legislature, and the upcoming election cycle. I think I speak for everyone when I say that he had our complete attention during the meeting, and quite frankly, I think we all found ourselves a little surprised to have received that kind of attention. (Some CQ readers will assume the meeting was to do a chip upgrade for Mr. Rove's implant in my brain. If so, it seems to have worked well.)

Our second surprise followed immediately afterward, when Fred Barnes closed out our session. He brought copies of his new book, Rebel-in-Chief: Inside the Bold and Controversial Presidency of George W. Bush. As Mr. Barnes is not just one of my pundit/literary favorites but also now my boss -- I write a weekly column for the Daily Standard -- I was delighted to finally meet him in person. He brought each of us a copy of the new book and talked at length about his analysis of Bush as president. The book itself only takes 55,000 words, a fairly quick read for political analyses these days; he told us that he thinks books that go much longer than that usually require better editing. The discussion led into a much more general discussion about what we thought Bush's legacy might be, the state of politics inside the Beltway, and the decline of seriousness in the mainstream media, especially in their demand that the American president serve as emoter-in-chief. The book looks very interesting, and I'm hoping to devour it on the flight home on Wednesday.

I'd love to tell more about the sessions this afternoon, but right now I'm at dinner with the First Mate, who is getting exhausted from a long day and needs to hit the sack soon. Besides, I'm getting a message from the implant that says I'd better wrap this up ... I must obey ...

UPDATE through the laughter: I love the idea currently cropping up in the comments that I have lost all credibility because I told everyone we met with Karl Rove yesterday for an off-the-record chat. Since I can't tell you what we spoke about, everyone assumes (a) Karl did all the talking, (b) all of us nodded our heads and agreed with him, and (c) we've done something different than every reporter in town. Would you have considered me more credible if I never told you that we met with Rove, or less? And would it have been off the record if Karl had just wanted to emphasize the Republican talking points, or would he have wanted us to go out and promptly blog it, or post it right from the room where we met?

You guys crack me up sometimes ...

RNC Blogger Forum: Nat'l Direction

The GOP has kept track of the president's approval rating and have been encouraged by the recent increase in support, according to a political strategist on the White House senior staff. The extreme polarization leads the White House to believe that the numbers won't flex in real terms much more above or below the current 45% or so that he currently has at the moment.

Because the war will remain the central topic and economy will also be on everyone's mind, this polarization will tend to work towards the GOP's favor. All other topics will wind up relating to these two touchstones -- and both, it is implied, will be net pluses for Republicans by the time the 2006 elections roll around. The staff still knows its history, and that maintaining its full edge in Congress may be tough. As earlier, the White House expects to still have a majority in both houses. As a Minnesotan, I can report that three key strategists are extremely high on Mark Kennedy and his chances to take the empty Mark Dayton seat.

Thirty-six governors face election, and 22 of those seats belong to the GOP. The effort on governors does not have much to do with grooming any candidates for 2008's presidential campaign. We got assured that the White House does not want to look past 2006 at the moment.

RNC Blogger Forum: Economic Strategy

Our afternoon session started off with Keith Hennessey, Deputy Director of the President's Economic Council, who wanted to touch base with us on the day we topped 11,000 on the Dow Jones. He stressed that government does not create growth, but it can set the conditions for it -- and that is what Bush has tried to do with his economic policy.

Productivity will remain the focus of the economic policy. Current projections show that productivity growth rate will continue at around 2.7%, ensuring shorter turnaround times for doubling the standard of living in the US.

Social Security - Bush talked about this last Friday and the White House expects to continue its public push to address reform. There are two pieces to this puzzle: long-term solvency and transforming the program to an ownership model soon. Productivity does not address all of those problems -- IOW, we cannot grow ourselves out of the problem.

Mr. Hennessey assures us that the White House has now discovered that it needs to continuously communicate its achievements on economic growth, and not lay back and allow the Exempt Media or the political opposition to define success as failure. I asked specifically whether he thinks that the problem is a staffing problem or just a reluctance to toot one's own horn at the White House, and he replied that they understand now more than ever that continuous communication is critical for their long-term success.

Great talk, and I think Keith made a big impression on the group.

RNC Blogger Forum: Alito's Statement

After a lengthy afternoon of pontificating Senators, we finally get to hear from the nominee himself for the first time. He seems very calm and reserved. He gives a self-deprecating joke to start about his approach to his confirmation, and then speaks movingly about his family. His father fought in WWII and became a teacher thanks to the kindness of someone in his community giving him a $50 scholarship.

Alito also talks about the honor of representing the government, and of spending the last fifteen years as an appellate jurist, and commiserates with anyone who had to read through his hundreds of opinions ...

Not much in terms of blockbusters in Alito's speech. The best part of it was its brevity, second only to his refusal to take himself so seriously.

RNC Blogger Forum: Hearing Live-Blog, Day 1

12:10 ET - We're under way with the hearing, and Arlen Specter is using his time to explain the process. He spoke about the "subtle minuet" surrounding the answering of questions by Senators. He says that Chief Justice Roberts' performance so far suggests that the court will not shift its political orientation.

12:13 - It appears that Specter is back on the reservation. He went out of his way to say that based on his conversations with Alito, the nominee would give proper consideration to stare decisis and noted the hysterical reaction by Planned Parenthood to the Souter nomination.

12:18 - Pat Leahy waited until his second sentence to mention Harriet Miers and her "forced withdrawal by a narrow faction" within the GOP.

12:21 - On the other hand, he waited until the 3-minute mark to mention the "disturbing memorandum" -- IOW, the cover letter he wrote for his resume over 20 years ago. I guess Leahy couldn't find any problems with his judicial record.

12:22 - Once again, O'Connor comes up in Leahy's address as Saint Sandra. Hey, she was a fair and decent Supreme Court justice, but she hardly qualifies as a model. He also decries that Alito is a white guy instead of ... some other flavor. So much for focusing on Alito's qualifications.

12:27 - "There are narrow and extreme factions who demand that they get nominees that will vote the way they want. That's why I will ask you specific questions on the issues." Apparently, Leahy just put himself in the company of those who want specific votes on issues.

12:32 - Orrin Hatch notes that since Alito currently sits on the federal bench, he's already bound by judicial ethics that contrain him from giving his opinion on issues that likely will come before the court.

12:38 - Kennedy takes the microphone. He starts off by applauding Alito's life story. "Will a nominee uphold ... equal justice under the law?" Again with O'Connor; "even one justice can advance or reverse the progress of our journey." Alito's record "troubles me deeply"; Alito's support for an "all-powerful presidency" is "deeply troubling". Kennedy continues to proclaim (erroneously) that the President spies on "American citizens". He not only misstates the crime, he misstates the purported victims.

12:44 - "In an era when more people are losing their jobs..." What? Has he not gotten the employment stats in the last three years or so? Does Kennedy even pay attention to hard data any longer?

12:45 - Judge "Alioto". Okay. Go back and play with Splash, Senator.

12:48 - Senator Grassley: "I have a much more positive view of Judge Alito." Gets a smile from the nominee and a laugh from the bloggers here.

12:51 - Grassley notes that 54 of his law clerks across the political spectrum endorsed him for his confirmation, saying that he never prejudged a case in their long experience with Alito.

12:54 - Grassley notes that Democrats have called the ABA rating the "gold standard", but have ignored Alito's unanimous "well-qualified" rating. Grassley notes that the factions have twisted facts to "give the nominee a black eye before these hearings have even started".

12:58 - Grassley did a nice job of letting a little passion get into his defense of Alito and still sound like the voice of reason. Unfortunately, he was followed by Joe Biden. Now because Alito reads the National Review and American Spectator and belongs to the Federalist Society, Biden expects him to answer questions he defended Ginsburg for not answering during her confirmation hearing.

1:04 - "It's not your fault that you're replacing the first woman nominated to the Supreme Court." Well, then why bring it up? If the confirmation hearing bears on Alito's qualifications, why should he defend his gender or his selection? Biden should ask that question of the White House.

1:06 - Biden, to no one's surprise, is running over his time, by stating for the record that he can't fathom why judges shouldn't prejudge issues that will come before the court. I believe him. I don't think Biden fathoms much of anything, and his questions will reveal that.

1:15 - Jon Kyl notes the long experience of Samuel Alito and then notes the standard of the ABA and its support from Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Kyl is always such an excellent speaker, one wonders when he will finally step into a more national role within the GOP.

1:35 - Dianne Feinstein invokes Sandra Day O'Connor in the first sentence, and then she spends her time criticizing the Rehnquist court.

1:42 - Feinstein pretty much spent her time saying, "I hope you'll spend your time with us breaking judicial ethics by committing to ruling on upcoming cases." Sounds like a replay of the Roberts hearings. This should be rather tiresome, but if the Democrats want to behave like idiots -- again -- that's their prerogative.

1:52 - The Political Teen points out that I switched to Central Time halfway through this post. I call it Senate Delayed Time ...

1:53 - They almost forgot to call Russ Feingold. No doubt that would have been a blow to the proceedings ...

2:00 - A 15-minute recess, wherein the Senators get to go to the yard and play dodgeball. Ted Kennedy usually gets selected last for this event.

RNC Blogger Forum: Upcoming Races (Update and Bump)

Our second briefing comes from a GOP strategist that gives us an idea of the 2006 electoral battleground on a national and state-by-state basis. The Senate races get the first review, especially the Casey/Santorum race in Pennsylvania; the GOP expects it to be "very intense", and will make a lot of use of the Internet. The GOP expects to see a lot of money get thrown behind Casey and for the Democrats to treat it as their Daschle race.

Ohio and DeWine shows a problem with the GOP state scandals and a very unpopular Republican governor. They're hoping for a catfight in the primary between the Democrats.

Missouri has Talent, who barely won the last time and is tied at the moment. It's a swing state that Bush carried in 2004, but still a risk for the GOP.

Montana has another "testy" primary for the Democrats, but this may be an Abramoff-touched election with Conrad Burns defending his seat. Rhode Island will have a primary fight between Chafee and Laffey.

Tennessee will have a tough primary and will face Harold Ford in the end. Three very good candidates will vie for that chance.

Maryland has Michael Steele, a terrific candidate going after an open Democratic seat. The Democrats have a late primary and may lose momentum that Steele can maintain -- and spend money that Steele doesn't need to spend.

Washington -- the GOP is bully on former Safeco exec McGavick (sp?), but Cantwell has a big lead right now.

Minnesota -- they're very excited by Mark Kennedy, and they should be. He's a great candidate.

Nebraska -- It will be surprisingly tough to knock off Ben Nelson, even though the state went to Bush by 33 points in 2004. They have three good candidates lining up for the primary, but it will be an uphill battle; Nebraskans comfortable.

West Virginia - No candidate against Byrd yet, but expecting one soon.

Why does the NRSC and RNC spend money against Laffey and in support of the RINO Lincoln Chafee? Short answer: he supports Senator Frist as Majority Leader.

House

Only 18 GOP seats at risk, only 22 open seats overall -- the numbers do not give much hope to Democrats who want to take over the House. A quick run through all of the various races tend to blur together. The upshot: no one expects more than 30 seats overall to be in flux and the GOP fully expects to maintain majorities in both chambers of Congress.

UPDATE and BUMP: More insider information from GOP strategists on the House races. Since 1854, there have been six six-year midterms, and the average seat loss for the party in power is 41 seats. The only one to gain seats was Bill Clinton, and the RNC says their strategy was to blame. They ran a national theme race on corruption and got spanked. Instead, they have learned now that all politics are local, a realization that has allowed them to outperform expectations the last three cycles. Now the Democrats appear poised to run the 1998 GOP playbook, and this strategist says he's really not surprised. The DCCC has spent a great deal of its hard-to-raise hard money in 2005 on several trial runs for national themes, and all of them have bombed.

Another problem is incumbency and the depressive nature it has on finding new talent, even in a party's own safe districts. Beating an incumbent is almost impossible at the moment, and it stacks up new blood. Interesting.

RNC Blogger Forum: Polling

We now go to background with key Republiscan strategists on polling. The numbers look better than reported in the press. The exact numbers are off the record, but they certainly seem compelling -- as long as the data doesn't put you to sleep. The GOP has had success over the Democrats in keeping their base happy, and the election will once again hinge on turnout. Even on specific issues, the numbers have recovered since the latest effort to get the news out to the GOP base. Alito has also gained respect from Americans on Alito, at least until today's hearings start.

Summary --

Pros: Solid base that has grown
Fewer ticket splits
Stronger confidence on issues

Cons: Voters want change
Low presidential approval (although improving)
Low Congressional approval

RNC Blogger Forum: The e-Campaign

The GOP wants to expand its reach through the blogosphere, as a senior strategist explained to us in the next segment. They want to be part of the larger conversation, which is why they have expended so much effort to connect to bloggers during this past year. They see the future in blogs that start focusing on narrower and more local races.

We can expect the GOP to roll out more tools for bloggers to use for elections in the coming year in order to get the word out or expand fundraising. They don't want to turn us into shills for the RNC, but they want to give us the tools we need to get out the parts of the message we support.

One of the problems that we have will be the credibility hit people take with close proximity to organized politics. If the GOP provides tools with no strings attached -- which they appear to understand -- then it will make sense.

RNC Blogger Forum: GOP Strategy

Our first event of the day was a meeting with RNC chair Ken Mehlman, who reviewed the strategy for the GOP in the upcoming electoral cycle. He opened the conference with some background remarks and then dove into the specifics of electoral and legislative strategy and took a number of questions from the assorted bloggers here at the RNC Blogger Forum.

I'll post this and update as we go ....

1. Positive agenda for change -- Defending the status quo won't do.

Need to be seen as reformers -- leadership already turning towards that. We need a smaller government to combat this kind of corruption. Reduce government, reduce corruption. But then how do we reform lobbying and government? Full and quicker disclosure. Keep in mind that what Jack Abramoff did was theft and kickbacks, and that should always be aggressively prosecuted.

2. Election is a choice, not a referendum -- Easier than in 2004, and that probably gets back into local choices.

3. Motivate and persuade simultaneously -- Still have to excite the base while finding new voters for the GOP.

Immigration will prove a major problem for motivating the base. Need more money, technology, and people at the border. "If you're not protecting the border, you're not protecting the country in a post-9/11 world." Guest-worker programs enforce the law; supply and demand disincentivizes people from following the law. We need to integrate the demand into the reform to leverage as much support as possible.

4. Remind people who the Democrats are.

5. Run better local campaigns

Other notes:

Entitlements are the true long-term economic problem, not deficits; the short-term deficit is only 2.6% of the GDP. However, our unfunded liabilities from Medicare and other programs threaten our long-term fiscal stability. We need entitlement reform based on market economics and ownership. Mehlman uses Medicare as a model, and he acknowledges Social Security came first because it already had bipartisan support.

Why are energy prices high? More global competition for energy means prices will go higher, unless more supply comes on line. People looking for higher taxes do not understand that this is a market issue, simple supply and demand.

Alito -- higher qualifications than anyone in 70 years. An outrageous effort to smear Judge Alito --"[Nan Aron] is the puppet master, and the Democrats are the puppets." The Vanguard issue has been repeatedly reviewed by ethics panels and found to be no problem. The ABA rating gets based on ethics, and Vanguard obviously formed part of that evaluation -- and he got the highest qualification unanimously.

Arnold Schwarzenegger is trying to invest in California; one can disagree with some of the specifics, but Mehlman believes that the Governator is working towards a positive result in California. On Susan Kennedy, Mehlman says that she is a "professional" and notes that strategy gets set by the leader and implemented by the professionals. He says Kennedy will work on Arnold's behalf, and not on her own agenda. He points to her market-based approach with her work on energy issues in California.

Mehlman fully supports Mike Pence and Operation Offset. The most important thing we can do in the long run, Mehlman says, is to eliminate single-payor systems in public policy and replace them with market-based solutions. "The Left hates monopolies in the private sector but loves them in the public sector." Conservatives should be the party of markets in both arenas.

The RNC Blogger Forum

Here's the lineup of bloggers for the forum, courtesy of Mary Katherine Ham:

• Tim from Townhall Capitol Report
• Michelle Malkin
• Capt. Ed
• Matt Margolis
• Ian Schwartz of The Political Teen
• Flip Pidot
• Pat Cleary of NAM
• Justin Hart of Rightside Redux
• Bob Hahn of RedState
• Mark Noonan of GOP Bloggers

Quite a lineup ... check them all out.

Osama Bin Dyin'?

According to Katherine Jean Lopez, Michael Ledeen (and Dr. Zin), al-Qaeda terror chief Osama bin Laden died three weeks ago from kidney failure and was buried in Iran:

It seems clear, however, that there is a greater rapidity of change, accompanied — inevitably — by the passing of the leaders of the old order. This is particularly clear in the Middle East, where seven key figures have been struck down in the past six years: King Hussein of Jordan in February, 1999. King Hassan of Morocco in July of the same year. Syrian dictator Hafez al Assad in June of 2000. Yasser Arafat of the PLO in April, 2004. King Fahd of Saudi Arabia in May of last year. Ariel Sharon of Israel was incapacitated by a stroke in early January. And, according to Iranians I trust, Osama bin Laden finally departed this world in mid-December. The al Qaeda leader died of kidney failure and was buried in Iran, where he had spent most of his time since the destruction of al Qaeda in Afghanistan. The Iranians who reported this note that this year's message in conjunction with the Muslim Haj came from his number two, Ayman al-Zawahiri, for the first time.

If true, it would explain why Osama passed up the chance to make the address that Zawahiri made, but would press the Bush administration to escalate its confrontation with Iran. After all, a key part of the Bush Doctrine was to go after those nations that harbor our enemies, and none was bigger in a symbolic sense than Osama. On the other hand, if he's dead now, that may actually play against action against Teheran to a limited sense, although no one doubts that their technical and monetary support for Islamofascist terror groups like AQ and Hezbollah will suddenly dry up anytime soon.

The article finishes with this summation:

The architect of 9/11 and the creator of Palestinian terrorism are gone. The guiding lights of our terrorist enemies are sitting on cracking thrones, challenged by young men and women who look to us for support. Not just words, and, above all, not promises that the war against the terror masters will soon end with a premature abandonment of what was always a miserably limited battlefield. This should be our moment.

Only if we have the will and the courage to grasp it...

Tories Ride The Wave To Top

The Conservatives have ridden the wave of momentum coming from multiple financial scandals to the top of the polls, according to the Globe & Mail this morning. Their new polling shows a national lead for Stephen Harper and his Tories of eight points over Paul Martin and the suddenly hapless Liberals:

Stephen Harper's Conservatives have opened up an eight-percentage-point advantage over the Liberals, the biggest gap of the campaign going into tonight's crucial debate, a new poll shows.

The survey, conducted for The Globe and Mail and CTV News by the Strategic Counsel, also shows that voters believe the Conservatives hold values that are closest to theirs, a turnaround from the first week of the campaign when Canadians identified more closely with Liberal values.

"This is huge," said Allan Gregg, chairman of the Strategic Counsel. "This really does show . . . that by virtue of the kind of campaign they've run, an issues-based, measured, moderate campaign, they have slowly convinced the population that they are not kind of offside the mainstream of Canada.

"If they can maintain this, they have basically taken the Liberals' trump card away."

If that is the basis for the gap, it could well come from a fury about the scandal-ridden governance of Paul Martin more than anything else. While people may want the government to provide them with cradle-to-grave services, they have begun to see that the cost results in a lack of accountability and even a shield from any kind of consequences for all but the most corrupt governments. The only way to keep politicians from raiding the till is to reduce the amount of money and power they can access -- and that fundamental value changes the calculation on all the others.

That lesson applies to Americans as well as Canadians, as both electorates have found out yet again.

The G&M poll shows the Tories up over the Liberals, 37-29, getting close to the range where Harper could wind up with a majority government. Even more important, the NDP has faded in Ontario along with the Liberal majority, and the Tories now own a 41-40 edge over the Liberals in their power base. That could mean a slew of new seats for Harper and deadly trouble for both Martin and NDP leader Jack Layton. That will be the key inside number to track in two weeks when the election results start coming in. If Ontario goes to the CPC, look for a majority government for Harper -- a stunning turn of fortune for the man who has endured repeated slurs about "hidden agendas" and was seen as unready for leadership as recently as two months ago.

And Martin has one last worry: if Harper gets his majority, the investigations into Adscam, Option Canada, and the income-trust insider trading will truly begin in earnest, as well as any other malfeasances. As one commenter from the Canadian capital put it, shredders in Ottawa have begun working overtime now.

Back To DC

The First Mate and I made the drive from Philly to DC just after the Justice Sunday event closed up. I have to tell you, the people at the Greater Exodus Baptist Church did a marvelous job hosting and securing the event; they put on quite a professional show. The FM and I also found our one-night stay at the Marriott Residence Inn in downtown Philly to be quite nice; the staff there went out of their way to keep asking if they could do anything for us and wishing us a nice vacation. (If they only knew ....) We did get a couple of hours this morning to see historic Philly, including a hansom carriage ride, the Liberty Bell, Independence Hall, and the Betsy Ross House. The latter attraction had a wonderful charm to it, and the people who play the characters on the tour took very good care to assist the FM and to work around a couple of tricky staircases for us. At $4 a pop, the self-guided audio tour is a bargain. Be sure to see it if you visit the city.

Big, big thanks to the FRC and to Charmaine Yoest, who coordinated the event for the bloggers.

Tomorrow I'll be blogging from the RNC offices starting around 9 am. In the meantime, I'm going to sleep.

JS III: The Event

7:02 - Dr. Lusk opens up the festivities on the same note that he left the crowd, and he gets the crowd on their feet to greet Tony Perkins. Perkins thanks congregations and pastors around the nation that have tuned in for the JSIII event.

7:04 - The protestors have swelled to about 75 or so and have pushed into traffic, drawing attention from the Philadelphia police department. ACT-UP appears to comprise most of the additional protestors, who have brought the usual effigy of George Bush.

7:05 - Santorum notes that William Penn spent his life establishing religious freedom in Pennsylvania. He is focusing on judicial activism and the destructive, corrosive nature of it on representative democracy. He challenges the audience to answer "No!" to Democratic efforts to "drag the hearings into the gutter". Not a bad speech, really, and pretty darned short.

7:13 - Martin Luther King's neice, Dr. Alveda C King, starts off with a song and a reading from Leviticus. She quotes a warning from her uncle that America has left God behind, an unconscious act stemming from our material pursuits. She derides the "little gods that are here today and gone tomorrow". She gives a powerful rendition of MLK's speeches. She finishes with "We Shall Overcome", which raised a couple of eyebrows in the media center.

7:17 - So far, the FRC has learned a lesson from the last event. The speakers have focused on the specific issue of religious freedom and the problem of judicial activism, instead of getting hung up on homosexuality.

7:21 - Dr. Lusk comes back for his speech, starting with Psalms. He moves to gay marriage, perhaps a mistake, but Democrats should note the big response it gets from the congregation.

7:25 - "I may not speak for all black people ... but I speak for some black people!" That gets an ovation. And that's just the warm-up. "The church has worn out a million hammers ... the more you hit us, the stronger we get." This man knows how to get people up out of their seats. He does not disappoint. "Take a look at the graveyard. All the men who have put their names above Jesus have passed away, only known for the desolation they have left behind." That could be the epitaph of the 20th century.

7:32 - Just looked at the Steeler score and startled the other bloggers. The Iron City Gange leads the Bengals 31-17 with 4:03 left in the game.

7:34 - Dr. Dobson takes the stage. This time he's at the event; for JSII he could only attend via video. He starts off by thanking Dr. Lusk and says, "Wherever you're fighting, I want to be standing beside you."

7:39 - He gives a tepid speech but a grim and detailed description of partial-birth abortion. He may not have the style to hang with Dr. Lusk -- he seems oddly off his game tonight as a speaker -- but the speech itself is pretty good. This time, he's focusing on the fact that the court has bypassed the legislature and the people in deciding on issues like gay marriage (rejected in every state where the question has been posed) and partial-birth abortion. This is a more effective presentation than the last event, which tended to go off about the "agenda" of the homosexual lobby in dark and scary tones. This presents the argument more objectively.

7:43 - Right Wing Sparkle laughs at me for giving a silent fist-pump. She knows I just peeked at the final score for the Steelers game -- 31-17 Pittsburgh.

7:45 - Jerry Falwell comes up next. I'm curious on how he will be received here, and what kind of speech he wants to give.

7:50 - "If the pulpit is not to address [moral] issues, then what are we to address?" He wants to celebrate the culmination of a 30-year effort to bring conservatism back into the mainstream, and it's hard to argue that he hasn't succeeded. In 1976, people thought Ronald Reagan too extreme to ever get nominated, let alone elected -- and at the time, they were right, but not about Reagan. Reagan had to wait until the Left had destroyed its credibility before people realized that Reagan wasn't extreme at all. And the Left has done the same thing over its desperation over John Roberts and Sam Alito.

7:54 - Falwell gives a better speech than Dobson, using a warm, inclusive, and sunny disposition to make up for the lack of fervor that easily contrasts him with Dr. Lusk.

7:56 - Some of you may wonder why I haven't included any photos on my posts this time. Unfortunately, I misplaced my digital camera. Stacy, however, has posted a number of great photos of the event and the protests.

8:02 - So far, I think this event has been more successful in pushing through a positive message. It hasn't focused on a negative, us-vs-them sort of rhetoric.

8:04 - The latest cause, the ACLU suit against the Indiana state house's tradition of prayer in opening its sessions, gets an interesting audible comment from La Shawn. When the taped presentation lays out the case and the ACLU's efforts to keep Christians from uttering the name Jesus Christ in public venues, she asks, "Who are the real fascists here?"

8:10 - Bishop Wellington Boone proves to be a terrific finish for the evening. There will be a close by Tony Perkins, but the emotional close comes with Bishop Boone. What a powerful speaker! To the liberals: "Don't spit in my face and call it rain!" I hope everyone has a chance to watch this man on the FRC site. It's an amazing speech.

8:15 - Time to do what they have spent all night urging us to do -- pray!

JS III: The Warm-Up

We're listening to the choir (and watching them now on the live feed from the media center), and I can at least promise potential viewers that the music is going to be better than JSII. Not to denigrate the efforts of the last event, but the music tended far too much to the tame. The choir here has already sung a couple of heart-stirring songs, and this is just warm-up.

We have the schedule in front of us for tonight. This will be a shorter program than the marathon that JSII became. Senator Santorum will speak at around 7:04 pm ET, but I'm looking forward more to Dr. Lusk at 7:20. He's taking eight minutes and I think he's been winding up all afternoon to deliver a blazing fastball tonight. He's warming up the crowd right now, but an audio problem kept it from coming into the media center.

Dr. Lusk held Tony Perkins' hand up and said, "You know what makes the Devil mad? This!!" This should be a resounding success for the GEBC and the FRC, just on enthusiasm alone.

JSIII: The Protest

The assorted bloggers decided to take on the throng of protestors outside the Greater Exodus Baptist Church around 5:30 this afternoon, so the four of us trekked across the street in the 30-degree weather to talk to all five of them. Actually, when we started, only three protestors stood across the street from the church, but two more joined in once we got there.

Stacy and Sparkle got photos and LaShawn got audio of the casual interviews, while I just more or less chatted with them. They represented no organization, just themselves, although they had laser-print signs that they obviously made at home. The first three all seemed very young, and two of them had little to say about the event other than they "hated those people" (the Christians, not specifically the GEBC). One of them appeared somewhat passionate about his protest, but he still mostly talked in slogans. His sign read "Want a Theocracy? GO TO IRAN!" and like Joey Steele earlier today, he somehow equated Christians giving their opinion on politics to an impending theocracy.

The two newcomers turned out to be a gay couple in their thirties that wanted to protest against Bush's anti-gay policies. They turned out to be much more lucid about their intent, as well as their chances of changing anything with this event. I spoke at length with one of the two men, who lamented the poor turnout for any kind of protest and wondered where the Alito opposition went tonight. Gay marriage was his partner's main cause, and I found out that Pennsylvania does not allow for domestic partnerships, either. According to the two men, Ed Rendell pushed partnerships through as mayor of Philadelphia but has apparently refused to stand up for them statewide now that he's governor. I'm about as tepid as can be on gay marriage -- I don't oppose it as long as it becomes law through non-judicial means -- but domestic partnerships should present few issues for conservatives who believe in freedom to enter into contractual relationships.

Fortunately, when we returned, Charmaine Yoest brought in hot coffee from a local Dunkin' Donuts. Man, it's cold out there.

Justice Sunday III: The WaPo Response

Another moment of media sausagemaking -- expect the Washington Post report on JSIII to lead with implied criticism of Dr. Herbert Lusk, the pastor of the Greater Exodus Baptist Church, for staging this event after garnering over a million dollars in federal government grants for community-building projects. Those grants, covered last week by the New York Times, come from the Bush effort to channel more money through established community groups such as churches so that the funds go directly to solving problems rather than recreating another bureaucracy. No one has offered any evidence that Dr. Lusk has not used the money effectively or kept it for himself, but the implication will be there nonetheless.

Watch for it tomorrow or tonight...

Justice Sunday III: The Yahoo Factor

One of the advantages of attending these events in person along with the other media folks is a chance to see how news gets presented from the ground up. The present case in point: headline writers. Kimberly Hefling from the AP filed a report on the press conference and the run-up to the event. Despite the straightforward report she wrote, which outlined the event on a clearly factual and non-biased basis, this was the headline in the Yahoo! feed:

Conservatives Split Ahead of Alito Hearing

I recognized Kimberly's name and walked over to where she's sitting, and introduced myself. I asked her if she knew anything about the headline, and she looked at her own AP feed. The headline that came from the AP itself just noted that "Conservatives Rally On Eve Of Alito Hearings". It seems that Yahoo! must read between the lines to see a conservative split that doesn't exist on Alito, and certainly doesn't exist here at the JSIII event.

Don't blame Kimberly Hefling for this one, or even the AP. This one belongs to the yahoos at Yahoo!

Justice Sunday III: Press Conference

3:01 ET - Activity has started to build in the media room at the Greater Exodus Baptist Church. It doesn't appear to be centered around the food table as it has been for the past hour, so it looks like we might get going soon ...

3:02 - Yeah, I know, the bloggers got to the table first, but that's the New, Younger, More Nimble Media for you ...

3:02 - Start is delayed for ten minutes due to a sound issue. Attention returns to the free food.

3:12 - Problem solved; we'll start in three minutes.

3:18 - Tony Perkins starts (President, FRC): Congregation excited about the opportunity to host JSIII. Runs down the list of grievances that "present a clear and present danger" to the exercise of free religion. Explicitly denies that he wants to impose a theocracy on the US.

3:23 - Dr. Herbert Lusk says the family in the US is "on the ropes" and says an alliance between GEPC and the FRC is obvious. "It's not about Herb Lusk ... It's about Jesus." He reminds the media that he played for the Eagles just long enough to be able to study for his mission. He loves the city; "I mean them no harm -- I mean them justice." Dr. Lusk spoke softly but eloquently, and spontaneously; he didn't have any notes for the presentation.

3:25 - Colin Hanna, President, Let Freedom Ring: Says that this is not a political reality, but a demand for a return to the liberty of free speech. He spearheaded the effort for Chester County, PA to get the 3rd Appellate Circuit to unanimously rule that government entities could indeed display the Ten Commandments on public grounds.

3:33 - Charmaine Yoest, VP FRC: We have every right to speak out and we intend to do so. Dr. Lusk adds to his comments -- "This is not a right issue or a left issue; it's a righteous issue."

3:35 - Question about this site as the selection for JSIII. Perkins notes that Philadelphia is central to American liberty and they wanted to stage the event in that kind of setting.

3:37 - Tom Edsell from the WaPo says that the churches usually win the cases, so there should be no cause for the concern. Perkins replies that the cost and effort to win at the appellate level is so onerous as to intimidate people from expressing their religion.

3:45 - USA Today wonders why Jerry Falwell did not get invited to speak at the first two Justice Sunday rallies but got included in this. Perkins responded by noting what a nice man Falwell is -- "a big teddy bear", Perkins calls him.

3:47 - Kim Hefling wants to know how this will support Alito. Perkins notes that the FRC has taken no position on Alito's confirmation and won't prior to his confirmation. Perkins follows up by saying that the FRC hopes Alito gets a fair shake and an honest vote.

3:49 - Dr. Lusk interrupts, saying that his greatest hope will be to show those people who have never been in an African-American worship service how his community celebrates their faith. Stacy asks about the reported break-in from last night, but Dr. Lusk clarifies that the incident involved someone interrupting his service yesterday evening. He got a good laugh when he said, "Of course, when he spoke out, we laid hands on him -- and he soon departed." The intruder shouted something about the separation of church and state, but no one knows if the man represented an organization.

Justice Sunday III: The Pre-Show

We're all here at the Greater Exodus Baptist Church in Philadelphia, preparing for the start of Justice Sunday III. The bloggers are all here on hand, the church has completed its security sweep, and our wireless looks terrific. I'm joining La Shawn Barber, Right Wing Sparkle, and Stacy Harp (as well as the First Mate) discussing the earlier church service. We're prepping for the press conference and having a blast.

I even ran into a little protest while putting my car permit on the dashboard. I ran into Joey Steel from World Can't Wait, which wants to warn the world of the impending theocracy that George Bush wants to impose on the US. Mr. Steel seemed particularly incensed that the Family Research Council has selected a primarily African-American church to stage JSIII -- as if the church itself didn't choose to support this cause themselves. He seemed non-psychotic, so I spent a minute with him and took a couple of his flyers into the church to show the other bloggers. He wants to warn the world of the coming fascist upheaval in the US.

It seems that something about people of Christian background getting together to exercise their right to political speech that frightens the people of World Can't Wait. So who are these people that get frightened by one televised rally? A look at their advisory board shows a few names of interest:

Lynne Stewart, attorney
Rosemary Candelario, pro-choice activist
Boots Riley , hip hop performer
Gore Vidal, writer
Warren Hern MD, Physician and pro-choice activist
Sunsara Taylor, writer
Mark Crispin Miller, professor & writer
Thomas Olmos, attorney
Mark Leno, CA State Assembly

Lynne Stewart, people will recall, got convicted of assisting Sheik Omar Abdul Rahman in getting messages to his followers that resulted in several deaths from terrorist attacks in Egypt. Sunsara Taylor is also known as Revolutionary Worker #1265. Mark Crispin Miller wrote the blockbuster you never read, Fooled Again: How the Right Stole the 2004 Election and Why They'll Steal the Next One Too (Unless We Stop Them). In other words, this isn't really even the mainstream Left we're seeing outside right now. I assured Joey I'd mention his concerns on my blog, and CQ readers can decide for themselves what they want to believe -- whether free speech belongs only to the atheists, or if Christians can be allowed to speak on their political beliefs.

We're going to get the presser going in a moment, and I'll be live-blogging it.

Everyone Loved Jack

The Democrats intend on using the ongoing scandal surrounding Jack Abramoff as a way to talk about the supposed "culture of corruption" surrounding the GOP, and have referenced the disgraced lobbyist's donation lists to exploit the catchphrase, "[Republican] knew Jack". Well, according to CapitalEye, a whole lot of people knew Jack, and not just Republicans. CQ reader John K sends the link tonight with the list of Democrats to which Abramoff's attention was given.

Make no mistake; the list contains more GOP politicians, and more money went to Republicans. That follows from the fact that the GOP controls more power, and has since the midpoint of Clinton's first term. But rather than it being a 20-1 phenomenon, the data shows it to be much closer to 2-1. Here's a summary of the last four electoral cycles:

Cycle .......... Dems ..........GOP
2000 .......$216,470........$409,513
2002........$552,230.......$1,478,740
2004........$620,503........$843,835
2006........$152,470.......$177,500

In fact, the ratio comes almost exactly 2-1 during this period, with Abramoff-linked donations accounting for $2.9 million to Republican coffers and $1.5 million for Democrats over this period. Over the last four cycles, the trend has not been towards the GOP, either; the Democrats got an ever-increasing share.

This doesn't exonerate the GOP for its association with Abramoff. But if people think that Abramoff represents a "culture of corruption" that relates only to Republicans, they obviously don't know Jack.

UPDATE: CQ reader and frequent commenter Monkei says: "Great. Let's have a big party and get all of them at once. Either party, either right or left wing. How does that sound to you?" It sounds good to me, which has been my point all along.

Another Arrest In UNSCAM

The FBI arrested a South Korean businessman that reportedly has been trying to reach a deal with federal investgators in return for testimony on the Oil-for-Food scandal. Tongsun Park apparently reached that deal late last week and will begin outlining his involvement in UN corruption and bribery:

The indictment, released on Friday, refers to attempts to buy the influence of two unnamed UN officials. A separate investigation - led by Paul Volcker, a former Federal Reserve chairman - into the scandal concluded that Mr Park and another accused man tried to pass $1 million to the former UN secretary-general, Boutros Boutros-Ghali.

The report said there was no evidence that Mr Boutros-Ghali received or agreed to receive the money. The Volcker commission also found that in 1997 Mr Park invested $1 million in a Canadian company linked to the son of Maurice Strong, a close aide to Kofi Annan, the current secretary-general, in an attempt to secure his help for Iraq. The report found no evidence that Mr Strong was involved.

"Park's arrest is an important step in the federal government's efforts to bring to justice those who broke US law in undermining the humanitarian purpose of that programme," said Michael Garcia, the US attorney in Manhattan.

He said Mr Park arranged meetings in 1993 between himself, a UN official and another co-operating witness, including one at the official's Manhattan apartment. Mr Park and the other witness also allegedly arranged a meeting in 1993, in Geneva, between the official, identified as "UN Official No 1", and two Iraqi representatives.

The FBI said in a court document that at a New York restaurant in 1996 the government witness met Mr Park, an Iraqi official and another high-ranking figure (referred to as "UN Official No 2"), who left the meeting early.

While the Volcker Report gives the public some good information on the scope and nature of the corruption at Turtle Bay, clearly it has done nothing to resolve it. The parallel investigation by the United States, meanwhile, has resulted in several guilty pleas by some smaller fish and secured their testimony on the actions of the big fish. The methodical and relentless pursuit of the corrupt has already demonstrated what a joke the so-called "containment" of Saddam Hussein became, as his jailers over time readily and greedily became his co-conspirators, while UN executive management either did nothing to stop it or, more likely, took part in its profitability.

Now we have Boutros Boutros-Ghali on the hook. Kofi Annan has to wonder when his turn is coming.