Are The Netroots Frightened?

This would indicate the answer is "yes". If Joe Lieberman wins in Connecticut, as seems increasingly likely, and if the Dems do not take control of either chamber of Congress, what would be the record of the netroots? They will have failed at every, single thing they have tried to accomplish, don't you think?

Why would this silly and desperate plan be any different?

What
The utilization of Google Adwords and simultaneous, widespread embedded hyperlinks in order to drive as many voters as possible toward the most damning, non-partisan article written on the Republican candidate in seventy key US Senate and House races. The campaign will run from Tuesday, October 24th until Tuesday, November 7th.

Why
According to the Pew Internet and American Life Project, the number one way that voters use the Internet for political action is to search for information on candidates. During the final two weeks of the election, it is reasonable to expect that as many as twenty million voters will be searching for information on candidates online. During this key time, this project will help push the most negative article written by a non-partisan media source on all key Republican candidates to the forefront of any search for that candidate. The negative article will appear both high on all Google searches for the candidates, and as an advertisement that appears whenever anyone searches for that candidate. By giving this article two prominent locations on Google searches for the candidate, and because it will come from a non-partisan source, it will increase the likelihood that the article will be seen and trusted by those searching for information on the candidate.

By all means, please do follow this advice from the left. This will ensure defeat for the Democrats. Because a real ground game, instead of a self-delusional, self-important, self-aggrandizing stunt will win out over a Google-bomb. To the left, the electorate is something to be treated with contempt.

How very sad.

Waaaaah!

We won the primary! You aren't allowed to actually beat us in the election!

Frankly, the Lamont campaign is sliding down into amateurish childishness at this point.

HARTFORD, Conn. — Ned Lamont's campaign says Sen. Joe Lieberman has failed to account for $387,000 in petty cash his campaign spent days before the state's August Democratic primary.

"Whenever this much cash is floating around it certainly raises suspicions of possible vote buying and other potentially illegal activities that the Lieberman campaign must answer," said Liz Dupont-Diehl, a Lamont spokeswoman. "It is crucial for the public to know what they were doing with this slush fund."

The Lieberman camp denied any wrongdoing.

Lieberman spokeswoman Tammy Sun said Sunday the cash was paid to field coordinators who then distributed money to workers who were canvassing. The payments to workers, many of them students, ranged from $50 to $100 per day, Sun added.

"This is just another reckless charge from a desperate campaign that is obsessed with reliving the primary," said Lieberman spokeswoman Tammy Sun. "The fact is, our attorney has assured us that the petty cash expenditures and the rest of our FEC report is in full compliance with the law's disclosure requirements just as every campaign Joe Lieberman has run for the last 18 years has been."

Lieberman doesn't need a slush fund, Ned. Because he has actually raised money instead of writing checks from personal funds. And he knows how to fund a ground game instead of relying on advertising. Hey! here's an idea! Have Kos star in an uber-creepy stalker-like campaign commercial where he peeks in through your windows.

Oh, sorry. Been there, done that. Does Kos return your calls anymore, Ned? Just wondering.

Stem Cells = Tumor?

A very disquieting news report that should really bother those who are strong proponents of embryonic stem cell research. It is very preliminary, but it is also very frightening.

Steven Goldman and colleagues at the University of Rochester Medical Center in New York said human stem cells injected into rat brains turned into cells that looked like early tumors.

Writing in the journal Nature Medicine, the researchers said the transplants clearly helped the rats, but some of the cells started growing in a way that could eventually lead to a tumor.

Various types of cell transplants are being tried to treat Parkinson's disease, caused when dopamine-releasing cells die in the brain.

This key neurotransmitter, or message-carrying chemical, is involved in movement and Parkinson's patients suffer muscle dysfunction that can often lead to paralysis. Drugs can slow the process for a while but there is no cure.

The idea behind brain cell transplants is to replace the dead cells. Stem cells are considered particularly promising as they can be directed to form the precise desired tissue and do not trigger an immune response.

Goldman's team used human embryonic stem cells. Taken from days-old embryos, these cells can form any kind of cell in the body. This batch had been cultured in substances aimed at making them become brain cells.

Previous groups have tried to coax stem cells into becoming dopamine-releasing cells.

Goldman's team apparently succeeded and transplanted them into the rats with an equivalent of Parkinson's damage. The animals did get better.

But the grafted cells started to show areas that no longer consisted of dopamine-releasing neurons, but of dividing cells that had the potential to give rise to tumors.

The researchers killed the rats and are very worried about the outcome they saw. This one ought to give a lot of people pause. There is a lot that is not at all understood here. It is really unfortunate that there is a political debate about science that appears to be not quite ready for prime time.

UPDATE: Additional coverage in the Washington Post this morning:

"The behavioral data validate the utility of the approach. But it also raises a cautionary flag and says we are not ready for prime time yet," said lead researcher Steven A. Goldman, a professor of neurology and neurosurgery at the University of Rochester Medical Center.

Goldman said he suspected that with modest changes in technique, researchers will be able to keep the benefits of the treatment while eliminating or reducing the chances of getting the cancerlike growths. But he conceded that much more basic research would have to be done before scientists — or regulators — were likely to be convinced of the approach's safety.

UPDATE: The Anchoress has a thorough post up discussing this. AJ Strata discusses snake oil salesmen. Dean Barnett (who has a personal stake in this type of research and still opposes based on his beliefs) is not at all pleased with the way this is a political football. Lori Byrd at Wizbang says the ad by Fox is powerful, but not truthful.

About That Self-Proclaimed Emperor

Ann Althouse asks a question. It is one worth contemplating. "Can someone who puts up with Glenn Greenwald's prose explain something to me?" What Ann would like someone to explain: "How can people bear to read Glenn Greenwald?"

How can people bear to read Glenn Greenwald? He posts endless massive blocks of overlong, tedious, unedited sentences. Here are two typical Greenwaldian sentences. Two:

Yesteryday [sic], I wrote a post pointing out that the hordes of right-wing pundits condemning the Larry Craig outing have no standing to voice such complaints, since the very tactic that they were purporting to condemn (publicizing innuendo about private sexual behavior and exploiting sexual morality for political gain) is one which their political movement has used repeatedly, over and over, as one of its central weapons. I cited countless examples — including some from this week, along with others throughout the last 15 years — which demonstrate that the right-wing of the Republican Party centrally relies upon tactics indistinguishable from the Craig outing, and that unlike the Craig outing (engineered by a single, obscure individual), the entire right-wing political movement traffics continuously in those tactics.

That's atrocious writing. Edit, you idiot. Absurdly, his next line begins "As was painfully clear to anyone who can read…" Well, Glenn, it is painful to read your prose, and anyone who can read and has any taste at all will turn away in disgust at writing like that. (Really, why is his blog popular?) This post, which he titles "Introduction to Logical Reasoning 101," as if it's going to be to the point, is almost 2000 words long — twice as long as a newspaper op-ed.

Ah, the run-on sentence. Miss Montalto beat that one into our heads in seventh grade. (Thanks, Miss M.). But Ann has a point, as she always does. There are really two basic forms of bloggers, according to Glenn Reynolds. Thinkers and linkers is how he divides it. I would submit that there is a subdivision in the "Thinker" category: long and short form writers. Long form includes those who write essays and longish analyses. Short form bloggers (which category I think I fit into) go more for the short and pithy, or short and funny. But short is the operative term most of the time.

Then there is Glenn the Greenwald. He's linked me once, I think. I've read part of a couple things he has posted. I've commented on his sockpuppetry mishap. But I can't say as I have ever read anything he has written all the way through. Why?

Because he is in a class by himself. Long form or short form do not cover GG. He is into downright Glacial form. His posts run on to the point that one cannot possibly figure out what he said at the beginning of a post when they reach the end. One has trouble figuring out what the point of a run-on sentence was when one reaches the end of it.

And Ann Althouse merely points out the lack of clothing on the Emperor. In short form. One cannot wait for the next linkage from the Emperor.  

UPDATE: Dan Riehl: Conga!

Pass The Fernet Branca!

Hollywood mans the barricades! The stars have come out in broad daylight! Pierce Brosnan, Halle Berry, Cindy Crawford, Jane Seymour, Dick Van Dyke and Tea Leoni all showed up! Lyn Davis Lear allegedly sent a chauffeur! Reports are that Gore Vidal sent an undocumented gardener! The barricades have been fully manned! Chant with us! NIMBY! NIMBY! NIMBY!

No gas shall pass! No natural gas for the peons! It would be unsightly!

MALIBU, Calif. - Clean water advocate Pierce Brosnan and other celebrity residents gathered at Surfrider Beach on Sunday to protest a natural gas facility proposed 14 miles off the Malibu coast…..

There are currently five terminals proposed for California, with three along the Southern California coastline.

One of the world's largest energy companies, Australian-based BHP Billiton, wants to build the Cabrillo Port Liquefied Natural Gas facility off the coast of Malibu and Oxnard.

Opponents say the terminals fail to meet clean air requirements and would be terrorist targets.

Under no circumstances should the state of California actually meet its own energy needs! Can't you see! Pollution must not sully California. It is only 14 miles off the coast! We might be able to see it on a clear day!Build the damn things in Oregon - who'd notice? Then pipe it to the stars. The peons can manage without energy. Our views must not be obstructed after all.

(Was that snarky? Good.)

UPDATE: Meanwhile, thanks to commenter Scott we have this little item. While the Stars were busy manning the barricades, the sewage of the stars was busy fouling Malibu beaches! You must not build that thing a mere 14 miles off the shore. It might obstruct my view of my steaming heap sailing off to China!

Environmentalists and health officials suspect Malibu homeowners’ leaky septic tanks are allowing what gets flushed down the toilet to flow down the hills and into the Pacific Ocean. To identify the offenders, authorities intend to use DNA testing and, if necessary, get court warrants to inspect septic tanks. And that includes tanks buried in the backyards of Hollywood celebrities.

Malibu, whose spectacular seaside cliffs, canyons and beaches have attracted numerous environmentally minded celebrities over the years, including Sting and Tom Hanks, was incorporated in 1991 specifically to stop construction of a sewer line. There are an estimated 2,400 septic tanks in this city of multimillion-dollar homes strung along 25 miles of coast.

Malibu residents fiercely guard their privacy and their right to use septic tanks, and many deny their septic systems are the source of dangerous ocean bacteria levels that rise sharply after heavy rains.

DNA sleuthing
Under pressure from Southern California regulators, investigators over the next few months will begin testing sea water. If DNA shows the waste is human and not from, say, raccoons or coyote, they will follow the trail up creeks that traverse neighborhoods in Malibu, where clean-water advocates such as Pierce Brosnan and Ted Danson live.

Where the tests show a concentration of human waste, inspectors will sleuth out the source. Though they will not request DNA samples from residents to match waste with its human source, they may ask a judge for authority to inspect tanks of property owners who bar them from taking samples.

“It is a big deal that the county is now saying, ‘We’re willing to go on to properties to see what the source of fecal contamination is,”’ says Mark Gold, executive director of the local environmental group Heal the Bay.

Malibu leaders have argued that the pollution comes from a wastewater treatment plant, storm runoff and bird droppings. Malibu actress and animal-rights activist Pamela Anderson contends the real polluter is animal agriculture, such as chicken farms.

It's the chickens, I tell you!

Lord. I can't make this stuff up. Really, I can't. When Pierce and Ted's excellent excrement turn up in the water, will there be a movie?

The Timing May Be Off

But I'll bet the prediction still holds true. The New York Times "Public Editor", Byron Calame has now admitted that the New York Times should not have published the story about the terrorist money tracking program.

My July 2 column strongly supported The Times’s decision to publish its June 23 article on a once-secret banking-data surveillance program. After pondering for several months, I have decided I was off base. There were reasons to publish the controversial article, but they were slightly outweighed by two factors to which I gave too little emphasis. While it’s a close call now, as it was then, I don’t think the article should have been published.

Those two factors are really what bring me to this corrective commentary: the apparent legality of the program in the United States, and the absence of any evidence that anyone’s private data had actually been misused. I had mentioned both as being part of “the most substantial argument against running the story,” but that reference was relegated to the bottom of my column.

The source of the data, as my column noted, was the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, or Swift. That Belgium-based consortium said it had honored administrative subpoenas from the American government because it has a subsidiary in this country.

I haven’t found any evidence in the intervening months that the surveillance program was illegal under United States laws. Although data-protection authorities in Europe have complained that the formerly secret program violated their rules on privacy, there have been no Times reports of legal action being taken. Data-protection rules are often stricter in Europe than in America, and have been a frequent source of friction.

Also, there still haven’t been any abuses of private data linked to the program, which apparently has continued to function. That, plus the legality issue, has left me wondering what harm actually was avoided when The Times and two other newspapers disclosed the program. The lack of appropriate oversight — to catch any abuses in the absence of media attention — was a key reason I originally supported publication. I think, however, that I gave it too much weight.

Calame puts this admission second in his column. After a, quite frankly, useless explanation of why the Times is becoming more magazine-like to support the core news gathering. Uh, sure. A lot of us have been saying ever since the publication of details of a legal program with adequate oversight, that the Times was badly out of line. Nice of Calame to finally notice the nose on his face. Patterico lauds the column for honesty, then calls for Calame to resign. He's right.

Back to that prediction. I said NYT editor Bill Keller would be gone by end of summer. Wrong. But I bet it won't be long now. I think that may be why Calame is trying to get out in front of this. With the recent disclosure that the Times' revenues are taking a real dive, Pinch the publisher will be going away at the next shareholder's meeting. Keller will be gone then or even sooner.

A Criminal Record

Welcome to the brave new world of environmental nanny-statism. A British man volunteered to be part of a pilot program for recycling. Apparently, a piece of junk mail addressed to the man somehow got into a bag meant for glass only. When officials found the offending paper, they did the logical thing, at least the logical thing for an out of control nanny state.

They prosecuted and threw the book at the man.

A householder has told of his despair at being landed with a criminal record for putting a scrap of paper in a bin bag meant for bottles and cans.

Michael Reeves, 28, has become Britain's first recycling martyr after a court fined him £200 for disobeying rules about sorting his rubbish.

He had volunteered to take part in a recycling scheme launched by Swansea Council. But somehow a single piece of junk mail found its way into a bag designated for other rubbish. And when council workers found his name and address on it, they prosecuted.

Last night the case provoked widespread anger. Even environmentalists said that it could put people off recycling as millions of householders already struggle to make sense of bewildering rules governing how to dispose of their rubbish.

Mr Reeves told The Mail on Sunday: "I now have a criminal record and it will weigh me down like a millstone. I will have to explain myself every time I apply for a new job. And if I want to go to the United States I will have to apply for a special entry visa."

Mr Reeves, a sports writer, also spoke of his frustration at his time-consuming journey through five court hearings.

"Not satisfied with a false accusation of mixing up my rubbish, they tried to throw in an additional charge of leaving the bags out on the wrong day,' he said. "Looked at in one way it is a hilarious tale of barmy bureaucracy - but I found it no laughing matter."

Last night, campaign group the Taxpayers' Alliance accused local authorities of cynically using the environment as an excuse to collect extra revenue. Director James Frayne said: "This is a joke. The Green movement in Britain is in danger of being hijacked by tax-hungry politicians. People will soon start to associate going green with going broke."

Welcome, Michael, to the Brave New World. Perhaps a jolt of Soma to take the edge off? Pay no attention to the savages.

Because It Has Been All Sweetness Up Until Now, Right?

The headline: GOP Losses Could Spark Partisan Warfare. The opinion piece masquerading as a news article goes on to describe a number of scenarios of what could transpire if the Republicans lose one or both chambers in November.

The White House is bracing for guerrilla warfare on the homefront politically if Republicans lose control of the House, the Senate or both — and with it, the president's ability to shape and dominate the national agenda.

Republicans are battling to keep control of Congress. But polls and analysts in both parties increasingly suggest Democrats will capture the House and possibly the Senate on Election Day Nov. 7.

Democrats need a 15-seat pickup to regain the House and a gain of six seats to claim the Senate.

Everything could change overnight for President Bush, who has governed for most of the past six years with a Republican Congress and with little support from Democrats.

"Every session you change the way you do business with the Congress. And you test the mood of the Congress, find out what their appetite will be. But it doesn't change your priorities," the president told ABC News.

Former President Clinton had to deal with the Democrats' loss of control of Congress in 1994. But Clinton had something Bush does not: six more years to regain his footing.

Bush has barely over two years left. The loss of either house in voting next month could hasten Bush's descent into a lame-duck presidency.

"If he loses one house here, President Bush will enter the last two years very wounded," said David Gergen, a former White House adviser who served in the administrations of Presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan and Clinton.

"He will have the capacity to say no to Democratic legislation, but he won't have the capacity to say yes to his own legislation," said Gergen, who teaches at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government.

Democratic victories essentially could block Bush's remaining agenda and usher in a period of intense partisan bickering over nearly every measure to come before Congress.

Loss of either chamber also could subject his administration to endless congressional inquiries and investigations.

The president and chief political strategist Karl Rove last week expressed renewed confidence of retaining both House and Senate; others are not so upbeat.

"All of our numbers look pretty bad and there's no question that there's a jet stream in our face," said House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio.

Furthermore, some of Bush's fighting in the trenches is likely to be with fellow Republicans as they seek to find a new standard bearer for 2008 — and distance themselves from an unpopular war, the unpopular president who waged it, and congressional scandals that include inappropriate e-mails to House pages from ex-Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla.

Keep flogging as many "scandals" as possible, maybe one will stick somewhere. Because up until now it has been nothing but bi-partisan cooperation and a mutual admiration society, right? Oh wait. The author of this "article" neglects to mention a few things.Like Nancy Pelosi's admission that she has been following advice to try to, "take him (the president) down" and obstructing at every turn. And look who would be in charge if the Democrats take over:

Some of Bush's sharpest critics would rise to top positions with a Democratic takeover.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., probably would become speaker. Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., a foe of extending Bush tax cuts, would become chairman of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee.

Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, who has sponsored legislation calling for steps that could open the way to Bush's impeachment, would lead the Judiciary Committee.

If Democrats win the Senate, Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada — one of the most outspoken of all Bush critics — probably would ascend to majority leader.

Gee, that would be the same people who have been obstructing and trying to "take him down" at every turn.

Still think it's a good idea to sit out the election, folks? Think it has been bad up until now?

Even Thieves Can Do Some Good Now And Then

If only by being caught in the act. Some would-be tomb robbers began digging into a previously undiscovered tomb near the Step Pyramid of King Djoser. They were spotted and arrested, but authorities, realizing they were onto something, kept digging and uncovered the tomb of three dentists.

The thieves launched their own dig one summer night two months ago but were apprehended, Zahi Hawass, chief of Egypt's Supreme Council of Antiquities, told reporters.

That led archaeologists to the three tombs, one of which included an inscription warning that anyone who violated the sanctity of the grave would be eaten by a crocodile and a snake, Hawass said.

A towering, painted profile of the chief dentist stares down at passers-by from the wall opposite the inscription.

The tombs date back more than 4,000 years to the 5th Dynasty and were meant to honor a chief dentist and two others who treated the pharaohs and their families, Hawass said.

Their location near the Step Pyramid of King Djoser — believed to be Egypt's oldest pyramid — indicate the respect accorded dentists by Egypt's ancient kings, who "cared about the treatment of their teeth," Hawass said.

Although their services were in demand by the powerful, the dentists likely did not share in their wealth.

The tombs, which did not contain their mummies, were built of mud-brick and limestone, not the pure limestone preferred by ancient Egypt's upper class.

"The whole point of a tomb was to last forever," said Carol Redmount, associate professor of Egyptian archaeology at the University of California at Berkeley. "So you wanted to make it out of materials that would last forever. And mud-brick … didn't last forever."

During a visit to the site, Hawass pointed out two hieroglyphs — an eye over a tusk — which appear frequently among the neat rows of symbols decorating the tombs. He said those hieroglyphs identify the men as dentists.

Hawass believes that only about 30% of what is buried in Egypt has been uncovered so far. Apparently, the tomb robbers are trying to do their part to help find the rest.

44 Years Ago Today

American President John F. Kennedy announced a naval blockade of Cuba on October 22, 1962. For the next seven days, the world stood at the very edge of a nuclear war. American school children practiced duck and cover drills. I remember those quite clearly - and the uselessness of them for our school. We all went into the halls and sat with our backs to the walls and covered up. Under the glass skylights that ran the length of the corridor. I don't think our principle quite grasped the concept.

More about the Cuban Missile Crisis including original recordings here. Listing of primary sources here.

Sadly, JFK would not be welcome in the Democratic party of today. Ask Joe Lieberman.

Over There

Kit Jarrell at Euphoric Reality has a recording of one of her original songs posted. She has a terrific voice, go over and give a listen.

H/T STACLU

Communist Heaven

There are, of course, far too many leftists who admire Communism even after seeing the disaster it was for much of the world. Many of these vicarious admirers inhabit academia, of course. There are also those here in this country who engage in interpretive dance celebrating Fidel Castro. But the fact is that the "system" of communism doesn't actually work. At all.

The official Prensa Latina news agency reported in a brief dispatch late Friday that the new minister will be Jorge Luis Sierra, a top Communist Party leader.

The government's ruling Council of State made the decision to replace Manuel Pazo, responding "to the priority that this important sector requires," the news agency said.

Cuba's transportation sector is still struggling to recover from the severe economic crisis after the Soviet Union's collapse. Cuba recently purchased scores of Chinese buses but most have been assigned to the tourism industry while average Cubans can wait hours for a crowded ride home on the city's older buses.

Yeah, that's a real victory for the worker's paradise.

Debating The Wearing Of Veils

A much needed public debate has begun in Britain over the public wearing of veils by a minority of Muslim women. Jack Straw kicked that off. The uproar continues, of course. The Times of London weighs in today with an editorial.

David Cameron gave a warning yesterday against politicians and others “piling in” on the issue. He said that Jack Straw had first raised the issue in a “calm, moderate way”. He noted, however, that many Muslims were feeling “slightly targeted” on the issue. Politicians have every right to comment on issues of national importance, and the integration of Britain’s Muslims is indeed such a case. It is wrong to denounce Tony Blair for voicing his concern that the veil is a “mark of separation”. It is a mark of separation. But these are sensitive matters that should not be sensationalised.

The Koran certainly does not demand that women wear a full veil. The relevant verse urges women to lower their gaze and “not display their beauty except what is apparent of it”. That phrase has been open to differing interpretation. But it also forms part of the theological dispute between mainstream Islam and some of the narrower and more puritanical sects, including the Deobandis, who originated in India. Ms Azmi comes from a Tablighi Jamaat background, a sect even more puritanical. Those insisting on the veil are a small minority of British Muslims — perhaps no more than 5 per cent. But they form part of the fierce political struggle going on for ideological supremacy and leadership among Muslims from different countries, ethnic groups and religious traditions.

In some areas, such as Keighley and Dewsbury, these disputes are fuelling extremism, especially among young Muslims. The issue has been under- reported: that is no longer the case. No community should be judged by its extremists, and the vast majority of Muslims are uneasy about radicalisation from within. And the vast majority of Muslim women are rightly uncomfortable with a very male interpretation of the sacred text.

Note that last line. It gibes completely with what Asra Q. Nomani wrote about very male interpretation of another line. That one was the subject of this post. Meanwhile, The Anchoress is also discussing the subject of the veil, riffing off another op-ed in the WaPo. It is that radicalization from within that the Times talks about that is one of the primary causes of the a large number of the problems we are encountering in the world, of course.

It Looks Like He’ll Try It

All the signs are pointing toward Barack Obama trying for the 2008 Democratic party nomination for president. Which will, of course, necessitate him canceling all those assurances he gave that he would serve out at least his first term as a Senator. But that isn't all that unusual, is it?

The Illinois Democrat said he could no longer stand by the statements he made after his 2004 election and earlier this year that he would serve a full six-year term in Congress. He said he would not make a decision until after the Nov. 7 elections.

"That was how I was thinking at that time," said Obama, when asked on NBC's "Meet the Press" about his previous statements.

"Given the response I've been getting the last several months, I have thought about the possibility" although not with any seriousness or depth, he said. "My focus is on '06. … After November 7, I'll sit down and consider it."

Obama was largely unknown outside Illinois when he burst onto the national scene with a widely acclaimed address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.

In recent weeks, his political stock has been rising as a potentially viable centrist candidate for president in 2008 after former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner announced earlier this month that he was bowing out of the race.

Generally speaking, it appears as if the press is lining up early behind him. It might make for an interesting primary season. Personally, I think he'd be better of running for Governor before he tries it. Senators have a terrible track record, historically-speaking. The electorate prefers people with executive experience traditionally.

About That Culture Of Corruption Thingee…..

Remember all that talk about a culture of corruption? Remember how the Democrats were going to clean up Capitol Hill? Remember how it was all going to be different? One might want to consider this: If Nancy Pelosi becomes Speaker, she has announced she will appoint chairmen of committees by seniority. Even if that chairman was once a Federal judge who was tried in the Senate and removed from the Federal bench. He was tried and convicted for conspiracy to take a bribe.

The Washington Post reports that a Democratic House leadership would likely name Rep. Alcee Hastings the head of the House Intelligence Committee, and that the Congressional Black Caucus is insisting on this, given that Rep. Hastings is first in line because of seniority; Michael Barone reports that "Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi is said to be determined to [name] Alcee Hastings" to the spot.

In 1989 the Senate removed then-federal judge Hastings, convicting him of conspiracy to take a bribe and perjury; the Senate vote was 69-25, and on one of the counts the vote was 34-21 even among Democratic senators alone. Hastings had been acquitted at his criminal trial some years before, which is to say that he wasn't proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. But shouldn't the standard for deciding who'll be head of the Intelligence Committee be more than just seniority plus he hasn't been proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt?

Gee, not even to election day and the hypocrisy is in full swing.