Vice Presidential Chief of Staff Irving Lewis "Scooter" Libby has been indicted in federal court on five counts of perjury, obstruction of justice and making false statements to investigators.

Given how intertwined this White House is, each of us must now be asking what did the President know and when did he know it?

MSNBC.com is reporting that Rosa Parks has died.

With the simple act of insisting on being treated like a first-class citizen, Ms. Parks started another American revolution 50 years ago that still resonates today.

She was a true American hero and we are all better off for her bravery.

AZ Congress Watch has it that District 8 nutcase and Kolbe primary challenger Randy Graf will be holding a town hall meeting in Douglas.

Graf has no chance of winning the entire district in a general election, but he needs to further cultivate the xenophobic Cochise County vote that he won last year if he wants any chance of winning the nomination next year.

I doubt Kolbe was expecting an aggressive primary campaign starting before the new year. At this rate, Graf could conceivably beat up on Kolbe enough that the more conservative voters in the district stay home on general election day.

Kolbe will run to the left to win the primary in northeastern Pima County, where the majority of the district's votes are and where the voters are typically more center-left than in the rest of the district. With a choice between two left-center candidates, general election voters usually choose the incumbent. This means the Dems need to field a candidate who will cover enough of the left and center to give Kolbe little room to maneuver.

The playing field is already turning out to be largely in favor of the Democrats. Combine that with the right Democratic candidate who can win over some moderate Republican voters, and the Democrats have a fighting chance for a seat they haven't held for 20 years.

All the Democratic candidate has to do is mostly sit back during the primary but take every opportunity to hammer home two points: Kolbe is complicit in the corruption of his party's majority leadership and he is out of touch with the needs and concerns of his constituents.

But if he's rightfully presented to voters as someone who has outlasted his effectiveness in Congress and is irrevocably a part of the DeLay culture of corruption before he has a chance to remind voters of the fact that he represents them (it's easy to forget when he's more concerned about aid to other countries than aid to people in his district who need it), the Democratic challenger will have successfully shaped the debate and created an uphill struggle for Kolbe.

I was planning to wait a little longer to see if any other Dems take an interest in this campaign, but so far it's not looking like any viable (hate that word) challengers are stepping up. Last I checked (if memory serves), there were four Democratic campaigns for the 8th District registered with the FCC: Eva Bacal, Tim Sultan, Mary Judge Ryan and Dwight Leister. A fifth potential candidate, Oro Valley resident Jeff Latas, is considering a run.

Bacal and Sultan ran in the last cycle (Bacal won the primary) and Ryan was Kolbe's major challenger in 2002.

Leister seems like a nice enough man, but his campaign website betrays an utter lack of political savvy.

Sultan, as I've written in an earlier post, would make a great candidate and better Congressman with some extra polishing, but I think he's moved on to bigger and better things at this point. After a brief stint working for the Governor's Division for Women, he recently started working for a firm of some kind in D.C.

Bacal and Ryan had lackluster performances in their respective challenges, though I do like Mary Judge Ryan and think she could be more competitive if her campaign was run more aggressively. That said, I don't think she's the one.

That leaves Latas, who has yet to file the necessary paperwork. He needs some work on his platform and help finding his voice, but the timing is right for someone with his background and profile to win this seat. He's trained as an engineer and spent his career in the Air Force as a pilot. He retired to a commercial airline and then fully retired recently. His son successfully fought leukemia and is now serving in Iraq. So right there he has instant credibility on emergency management, foreign policy, health care and the Iraq debacle.

Regardless of who it ends up being, the prospective serious candidate will need to start fundraising before year-end to run the kind of effective campaign that these times call for. I may be endorsing or otherwise supporting a Democratic candidate sooner than I thought...

I bought a new car today, a 2006 Kia Optima, because my old one, a 1992 Buick Regal, up and died on me last weekend.

I'm naturally very excited about the car. It's the first one I've ever bought.

I'm also fighting off anxiety attacks because of the amount of my monthly payments and guilt pangs because my parents have stepped up to the plate to help, even though they really can't afford to (and over my objections).

The whole experience would have been a lot more positive if I hadn't been told that I could not lease the car. Apparently, my years of on-time and in-full student loan payments don't count as a factor in leasing a car. I have excellent credit, with a score above 700, thanks largely to my dutiful payments toward reducing my student loan debt. But apparently the only factor more important than my credit score to Hyundai Motors Financial Company is whether or not I've bought a car before.

In essence, I was penalized for earning a degree and having to pay for it. People who don't go private colleges or who are wealthy enough to actually afford it have advantages over us poor schmucks who wanted to better ourselves but had to get financial assistance to do so.

People who don't go to college at all are actually in better shape than me because they have more disposable income without any student loan debt and are more likely to establish revolving credit accounts because they have, on average, lower incomes than I do.

The people who didn't need to incur any loan debt to attend fancy private colleges and universities are also the ones who don't have to worry about cash down or credit ratings or FICO scores because if you can afford eight semesters at Ithaca College with no debt, you can probably afford just about anything.

I really feel penalized for following the rules and working hard. My loan payments ought to count for something.

So now, instead, I've come close to doubling my debt over the next six years and three months when I could be paying a lot less each month during a much shorter period.

The system is broken, but I don't expect my members of Congress to do anything about it. After all, if I'm having anxiety about my financial health, how is that any of their business?

...who took issue with today's USA TODAY cover story.

Kos blogged about it too.

OK, not quite yellow journalism as the term was originally used, but USA TODAY at least practices tabloid journalism with a modern twist.

The paper is an absolute rag and I avoid reading it when I stay in hotels because of its bias and shoddy reporting. I took it up to the hotel restaurant this morning just to have something mindless to do while I ate breakfast.

The cover story is about the decline of male enrollment in colleges and universities and how some alleged "experts" see a need for what they call "affirmative action for men." There are so many things wrong with that phrase that my mind is still reeling.

The article does get points for at least mentioning the pay gap, but there is very little besides that in terms of actual research or reasons why fewer men are enrolling in degree programs. For example, might there be fewer men going to college now since so many of them are enlisted in the armed forces? Or perhaps it's rather obvious that men need less education to go farther than women and therefore why incur student loan debt when you can take advantage of the ole boys' club? The article would have been much better balanced if it had looked at Department of Labor data instead of relying solely on Census data.

The real kicker, however, is how the reporter decided to close with another "expert" who suggested that institutions of higher learning boost their male enrollment by "emphasiz[ing] male interests, such as sports..." Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight, because sports are so poorly funded and underemphasized right now, especially at large public universities.

On the cover of the rag, right above that cover story, is a banner for an article inside the LIFE section. The title in the banner reads, "Movies with a cause." The text, next to a picture of Charlize Theron, reads, "From North Country to communist hunters, movies dramatize social issues."

In case you don't know, North Country is based on a true story about women coal mine workers in Minnesota who are sexually harassed and sue the company because the company did nothing to stop the harassment or prevent it from escalating, as sexual harassment usually does if left unchecked.

Why can't USA TODAY just print "sexual harassment" on its cover? It printed the subject of Good Night, and Good Luck ("communist hunters"). Sexual harassment is inarguably the more timely and relevant topic in today's world. Why is USA TODAY so intent on minimizing this civil rights violation?

Further inside the LIFE section is an article on a new book by Darla Shine, wife of FOX News programming executive Bill Shine (that ought to tell you all you need to know about where this is going). The book, entitled "Happy Housewives," is subtitled, "I was a whining, miserable, desperate housewife - but I finally snapped out of it...you can too!" Thank goodness for small lobotomies, I guess.

Shine says that modern women might be able to learn something from fictional 1950's TV housewives like June Cleaver because, "look at the girls in those shows: They look beautiful. Their houses looked beautiful." Um, Darla, that's because they're fictional women in sets built on soundstages, not like the beautiful women in beautiful homes on fictional Wisteria lane whom you deride so freely. The difference between June Cleaver on "Leave it to Beaver" and Susan or Bree or Lynette or Gabrielle on "Desperate Housewives" is about 50 years, a second wave of women's empowerment and a sexual revolution.

This one is really the kicker for me:

Shine also says women should pay more attention to their husbands.

"When the babies come along, we're tired, we don't want to have sex, we push our husbands away. You have to stop that. You'll be in a better mood at the PTA meeting if you're getting some action."

This sounds eerily similar to the Southern Baptist Convention's decree that women must "faithfully submit" to the will of their husbands. Women enjoying sex is a great thing, but not for the sake of keeping their husbands happy. Sex should be mutual, when both (or all) parties want it, not only when the husband is craving "attention".

I have the utmost respect for stay-at-home moms. Heck, I was raised by one and I think she did a helluva job. My problem with Shine is her obnoxious, derisive tone, as though anyone who is not 100% happy with her life is useless or a whiner. Of course, she also overlooks the fact that staying at home to raise the kids is just not an option for many many women, single or married.

I would not be surprised if Shine turned out to be a member of Concerned Women for America, the misleadingly named arch-conservative group (headed by a man, by the way), that frequently undermines progress on women's equality by attacking successful women who don't agree with them 100%.

In fact, the whole newspaper is just another arm of the right-wing noise machine. Unfortunately, it also has a wider circulation than any other paper in the country. It would be frustrating if it weren't also so scary.

I'm glad hotels carry HBO.

I enjoyed this week's episode, but there weren't any really stand out moments. Maybe the fact that there were no conservative guests this week had something to do with my enjoyment. Max Cleland, the former Senator from Georgia and Vietnam war hero who lost three limbs serving his country in that conflict, was the surprise hit with several very funny, slightly off-color remarks.

This episode, coupled with my recent experiences in Austin, have got me thinking. This harkens back to a much earlier post I made here about aging hippies and how they're hurting their causes by the way they present their issues.

I very much respect and appreciate progressive grassroots activists, especially those doing anti-oppression work. In fact, I often consider myself one of them. What frustrates me, and I experienced it again this week, is when they take offense and quibble over every little detail, arguing for the sake of arguing with anyone who will listen to them, even if their current target is otherwise a very strong ally.

It's why second-wave feminists have so easily been portrayed as lacking a sense of humor and a big reason why second-wave feminism was so easily ridiculed and contested by conservatives. I'm not saying I agree with the ridicule, but it does speak to how a group presents its ideas to a general public that isn't necessarily in the same headspace as the subgroup.

Aging hippies, second-wave feminists and conservatives all have something in common: they all believe that everybody is coming from the same starting place. Let me explain.

For aging hippies and second-wavers, they generally believe that the general public will naturally side with them if they present the "truth" or the "facts" about an issue. What they fail to recognize is that the baseline is different for every person, and on average is much farther to the right than they expect. One person's truth is another person's crazy fringe conspiracy theory. When the aging hippies and second-wavers test their messages, they preach to the choir without taking into consideration how someone outside their circles will respond. Other progressive groups do it too and it breaks my heart. They could do so much good if they could just learn to evangelize instead of preach to the converted.

Conservatives by the same token think we all start in the same place - with the same access to resources and opportunities. They hate to accept that oppression exists, that some people have a harder time making the same gains and accessing the same opportunities simply due to the color of their skin, who they screw, how much money they make, whether they had the opportunity to go to college, how they pray and so on. If someone failed to make proper use of the same opportunities that they frequently take advantage of, it's that individual's personal failing. It's a glib and frankly obnoxious worldview.

Aging hippies and second-wavers (and many other progressive constituencies) have a distinct advantage over conservatives in universal truths, such as the existence of oppression. Conservatives however are much more astute at speaking to the masses on an accessible level. Audre Lord talked about the fallacy of dismantling the master's house with his tools. I respectfully disagree if we consider preaching to the "heathens" a tool. Progressives used to know how to talk like the populists we are, and it won us wide majorities for decades.

Anyway, I could go on and on about that, but it's late and I'm tired, so I'll end with this snippet from the final New Rule:

Among social conservatives, sex is to be tolerated only as long as it's joyless and toy-less, and, most importantly, within a marriage. But we certainly can't have jezebels like Harriet Miers - think they can just use their genitals for pleasure and then waltz onto the Supreme Court! What would we tell the children?

How about this? Why can't she just be somebody who likes to live alone? Not co-dependent. Single because she likes it. I hope Harriet Miers is having a rich, guilt-free sex life. You go, girl! That's what should be normal...

From someone who likes to live alone and is single because I like it, thank you Bill Maher. At least you're one mostly progressive guy (who tries to hide behind that "independent" label) who is still railing against the banality of homogeny.

Next week (this Friday, actually): panelists will beTV talk show host Tucker Carlson (note to Tucker: bowties are only cute on old men or with tuxedos...they just make you look even more out-of-touch than you sound), Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (the way this woman defends the Bush family disasters, you'd think she married one of 'em...or at least served as White House counsel) and filmmaker Spike Lee (I hope he gives the first two guests the smackdowns they deserve).

...but most actions engaged in by conservatives are downright criminal.

That title line is actually a tagline of a commercial being run on Austin TV stations right now, targeting Ronnie Earle, the prosecutor who has won indictments - twice - against Tom DeLay.

Classic DeLay: when you have no affirmative defense and your corruption is challenged, attack attack attack. Bonus points for inciting misplaced anti-liberal hate.

The commercials are ostensibly paid for by the Free Enterprise Foundation, but we all know who's pulling the strings.

I have to say, I'm pleasantly surprised at how hard the local party and the Democratic candidates for City Council are working. To date I've received:

• one telephone call that asked if Leal, Uhlich and Trasoff could count on my support and to ask if I would put a sign for them on my lawn (I live an apartment complex and don't have a lawn of my own, so no go there)


• one direct mail piece from Karin Uhlich's campaign that took exactly the right tone in bringing a lot of the less flattering points of Kathleen Dunbar's record (and there are a lot of them) to light


• one pretty good direct mail piece from the county party on behalf of all three Dem candidates; and


• I just received a recorded telephone message with the Governor and a representative of the county party reminding me that I can vote by mail

I don't know whether Ronstadt and Dunbar's people are being as aggressive with their campaigns. I'm definitely seeing a lot more lawn signs for Uhlich and Trasoff. In fact, I've only seen one Fred sign and no Kathleen signs.

It's clear the Pima County Democratic Party is being smart with this election by running a strong, concerted, well-organized GOTV effort. If I were asked to call the race today, I'd say that Leal and Uhlich are sure bets (Steve is running unopposed after yet another Republican had to withdraw because of a scandal).

The race to watch will be Ward 6, where Councilman Rondstadt has inexplicable crossover appeal, but Trasoff is a strong candidate who will hopefully start going for the jugular soon.

The city race I'm waiting for is Carol West's. Now that she's an independent, the county party can field a strong challenger to unseat that particularly nutty turncoat.

I don't know why I'm still watching this dreck. I suppose it's because I really want to see a compelling drama about a woman as POTUS. Unfortunately, this ain't it.

I noticed in the opening credits tonight that "Created by Rob Lurie" appears under the title. That's pretty damn self-absorbed. After all, "The West Wing" was never credited as "Created by Aaron Sorkin" at the beginning of every episode. And Sorkin is an incredible talent. Lurie, on the other hand...

According to Wikipedia:

Rod Lurie (born June 15, 1962) is an American director, screenwriter and former film critic. The son of internationally syndicated cartoonist Ranan Lurie, he was born in Israel but moved to America at a young age. Graduating from West Point military academy in 1984, he became an entertainment reporter and film critic. His irreverent style (he once described Danny DeVito as a "testicle with arms") often raised controversy and got him banned from screenings.

So what do we learn from this? First, he's military and from Israel, so he undoubtedly has a certain Zionist perspective. It explains a throwaway line in the second epsiode of CIC in which Donald Sutherland's character is told by his chief of staff that he's running late for an AIPAC meeting. AIPAC is the American-Israeli Political Action Committee, a right wing group that aggressively pursues a nationalist, conservative, anti-Palestinian Zionist agenda.

Second, we learn that he'll go for an easy, crude insult without caring whether or not it's funny. Third, we learn that he doesn't care who he offends, even if it hurts his career.

OK, so let's learn about Rod Lurie's prior credits. I mean, if he gets a "created by" credit at the start of every episode, surely he must be an accomplished artiste.

Well, he's worked on a couple of movies:

Lurie's first foray into filmmaking, as writer and director, was the low-budget political thriller Deterrence (1999). His second was the critically acclaimed The Contender (2000), written for Joan Allen and co-starring Gary Oldman and Jeff Bridges. His next effort, The Last Castle (2001), was a commercial failure. He is currently working on Resurrecting the Champ, a boxing drama.

OK. Not much there. Here's the wiki synopsis of Deterrence:

The movie opens with a series of historical clips of various United States Presidents making speeches before beginning the story. President Walter Emerson, newly elevated from the role of Vice-President by a sudden vacancy, is crossing the country on a campaign tour when a freak snowstorm traps him in remote Colorado diner with a bunch of ordinary citizens.

Suddenly, word arrives that Uday Hussein, leader of Iraq, has invaded Kuwait. With U.S. troops already committed to other countries, Emerson informs the world that unless Hussein orders an immediate retreat and surrenders himself, he will bomb Baghdad with a nuclear weapon, to the dismay of the customers in the diner. Hussein's diplomat refuses to back down and cuts off the telephone talks, citing the fact that Emerson is an unelected leader and a Jew, also threatening to fire their own, black-market atomic bombs at several world locations including Emerson's own. After that, it's solely a matter of who "blinks first."

Hmmm. A "newly elevated" Vice President due to a "sudden vacancy"...sounds a little familiar. Let's look at another one, the wiki synopsis of The Contender:

The Contender (2000) is a disturbing political thriller directed by Rod Lurie about a Democratic President who, in the wake of his Vice President's death, is seeking the confirmation of his replacement. President Evans considers nominating a loyal governor, Jack Hathaway, to the position. However, when Hathaway witnesses a car drive off a bridge, tries to save the driver and fails, the President drops him, claiming that his administration can't afford another Chappaquiddick. The President then taps a talented female Senator as his running mate, only to see her accused of sexual immorality by Republicans, possibly with the help of his first choice for VP. Refusing to dignify the ever-escalating attacks with a response, the Vice-Presidential nominee poses a tough question: would having adventuresome sex as a college student even be an issue at all if she were a man? This movie is in many ways a depiction of a modern-day witchhunt.

Another Vice President search. An unexpected death at the highest echelons of power. A Republican villain. Choosing a woman for Vice President. A sex scandal where the rights of women to enjoy sex is called into question. Why, that might as well be the pilot episode of "Commander in Chief!"

I'm a flaming, bleeding heart partisan liberal, but even I can't cotton to the over-the-top portrayals of members of either party in the new ABC drama. Combine that with the fact that Lurie keeps rehashing the same plots - poorly - and you start to see where this show is not long for this world.

There may be a drastic shift in the political ideology of "The West Wing" in November to one with which I drastically disagree. Even if this happens, I'll still thoroughly enjoy it and continue to watch because it's far better written (even with Sorkin's absence for more than a year). John Wells, while no Aaron Sorkin, can still write circles around Rod Lurie any day.

Now the show that comes on after CIC, "Boston Legal," is well-written, classic David E. Kelley (and Ithaca College alumnus Bill D'Elia is an executive producer...coincidence? I think not). I hope CIC gets no ratings boost because it leads into the far superior show.

Very odd episode of Real Time with Bill Maher this week.

Ann Coulter was pissed at Bush, Andrew Sullivan sounded like a populist, Ben Affleck sounded like a spokeman for the DLC and Salman Rushdie was doing standup. It was bizzaro TV.

Coulter's liberal-hating and Sullivan's conservative righteous indignation brought something to mind for me: we've spent a lot of time as progressives fighting Bush's agenda and have generally lost sight of the larger picture, at least in how we engage in public discourse.

The bigger picture of course is the folly of conservatism itself. I read something recently that talked about how Reagan effectively changed the perception of government from a tool for the common good to a tool for survival of the fittest with his infamous "are you better off today than you were four years ago" rhetorical debate question. The article I read talked about how that one word - "you" instead of "we" - went unchallenged then and has led us to where we are today, with self-proclaimed conservatives controlling everything. It's a lot more complex than that, but the premise makes sense.

Back to tonight. The assumption that conservatism - less government social safety net and more intrusion in our private lives - is the solution to all our ills is just stupid and counterintuitive. And yet we give them a free pass now without challenging this intellectual dishonesty.

It's not even a matter of ideology. Conservatism just doesn't make sense as anything other than a worldview for the selfish and power-hungry. I was struck tonight by how the tenets of conservatism were just accepted as valid and productive, against all logic and evidence, by Sullivan and Coulter. And that foundation was left unchallenged by Maher and Affleck and Rushdie.

Coulter is reprehensible and kind of ridiculous in how rabid she is, but she is damn effective at bashing liberals and distorting our goals and view of the world. And in the void of progressive politicians defining precisely what we stand for, she does a pretty good job of setting forth her own definitions, regardless of how wrong they are. At least she's articulating something, even if they are outright lies.

In the earlier days of his campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination, Howard Dean was very clear about how Democrats need to be playing the game. Just as in sports, when your team is down on the scoreboard and it's the fourth quarter, you play an aggressive offense, targeting your opponent's weak spots and taking every opportunity you can find.

Conservatives now have weak spots in spades. Now is the time to go on the offensive and make the case to the American people not just of a failed Presidency, but of an entirely failed political belief system. Conservatism failed the people of New Orleans, it fails women, it fails people of color, it fails queer people, it especially fails poor people and yes, it even fails the middle class.

We must tie the corrupt leaders of this political ideology to the political ideology itself. We have to make the taint clear and unshakable. A lot of jokes have been made about how it only took the Republicans 10 years to outdo the corruption it took the Democrats 40 years to achieve as the party in Congressional power. I submit that a lot of that has to do with the fact that the very basis of conservatism is more conducive to corruption: conservatism is about personal gain over the common good. It's not that it took ten years for the conservatives' corruption to happen, it just took ten years for the public to realize they were corrupt because of how they see the world.

As long as they can keep the focus on individual events or policies or politicians and not their larger failed worldview, the conservatives will always have the upper hand. Coulter and Sullivan are the poster children for privilege, which is the vehicle by which conservatism is passed on. Privilege isn't inherently bad, but only if it's put to use helping people who don't have it. Heck, conservatism isn't inherently bad, it's just prone to corruption and too often advocates limited opportunity.

America deserves better.

I just posted a reply to a Blog For Arizona post on Kyl and VAWA. Here's what I said:

Sorry, but I have to comment on this one.

Jon Kyl is a lot of things, and his amendment to VAWA is by no means a good thing, but his goal is definitely not to kill the bill.

He has a solid record of voting for VAWA both in 1994 as a House member and in 2000 in the Senate. He's the only member of the Arizona delegation to do the right thing both times. (So-called "maverick" McCain voted no on one of those occassions)

Let's face it, the guy's a hateful schmuck, but he's one of those rabid law enforcement types who loves this kind of legislation.

The bill wouldn't be killed because of this amendment anyway. It passed the House last week by a 415-4 margin and the Senate this week by unanimous consent. It's hugely politically popular on both sides of the aisle. Democrats won't vote against it even if the amendment stays in the conference version and Republicans won't vote against the final version if the amendment is gone.

You're right in that the part of the law with the amendment is an Unconstitutional provision that will likely be challenged almost immediately after Bush signs the bill into law. And assuming the Supreme Court still has a shred of allegiance to the Constitution and precedent by that point, that one portion of the law will be struck down without affecting the deeply crucial funding and legal protections that comprise the majority of VAWA.

Sometimes you need to make a deal with the devil to get anything positive done. As someone who works daily with survivors, I think this was one compromise that will turn out to be well worth it and one in which we'll eventually be the only beneficiary when the devil's amendment is declared unlawful.

And lest you think I'm some troll, please visit my blog and see how much I take Kyl to the mat on just about everything else: blog.m2powered.com.

Thanks for paying attention to this issue though. We need all the copy we can get dedicated to reauthorization as soon as possible.

So Katie Holmes is pregnant with Tom Cruise's baby.

I would never wish mental illness on anyone, but I admit I'd feel a little Schadenfreude if she got post-partum depression.

I bet Tom and Nicole's marriage probably would have ended a whole lot sooner if they had natural childbirths instead of adopting...

Anyway, Mazel Tov to the proud parents-to-be. May your brand of crazy not be genetic.

Even though I'm an atheist, I was raised Jewish in an overwhelmingly Christian (but mostly moderate) community, so this kind of crap really pisses me off:

Because the race fell on Rosh Hashana, the Jewish New Year, Orange County election officials hurriedly organized five days of early balloting at nine locations, including four synagogues.

The election in question was today's primaries for the California 48th Congressional District, the seat vacated when Rep. Chris Cox was nominated to head the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Voter turnout was only 20% in the district today, which is low even by special election and primary standards. Did it even occur to Orange County elections officials to change the date of the primary so it didn't fall on one of the holiest days of the year for Jews, when many of us (yes, I still identify as a Jew, even though I don't practice) take off work and spend the day in synogogue? Even if it would have only helped increase the turnout a little, it's still a step in the right direction.

I'm sorry, but scrambling to organize early voting in a pathetic nine locations is not even close to a reasonable accommodation, especially in sprawling districts. Not only that, but it's deeply disrespectful.

For a bunch that whines louder by the day that they are persecuted even though they control just about every political body, these conservative Christians - who control this district too, by the way - sure have a funny blind spot for actual religious persecution.

I remember years of my mom sitting on the local school board back in Jersey and enduring irate phone calls and name calling and dirty looks simply for insisting that the high school football team not play games on Rosh Hashana or Yom Kippur. Those neighbors were mean and ignorant and obnoxious, but they taught me the value of standing up for my beliefs, even when they may be unpopular. And that was just football. This is democracy (in theory).

This is so typical of the self-centered, self-absorbed Christian majority, especially in conservative Orange County. It would not have been difficult to change the date of the election, either by a day or a week. It was a special election anyway, so the date was more or less arbitrary.

Honestly, didn't anyone bother to look at a calendar before selecting the date?

I've been meaning to write a post on this anyway, but MoveOn beat me to the punch:

Your representative, Rep. Kolbe, received $5,026 from Tom DeLay's fundraising PAC. Will you call Rep. Kolbe and ask him to return the money?

Here is what you need to know to make the call.

Congressman Jim Kolbe
Phone: 202-225-2542

Tell the staff member who answers that you are a constituent and something like the following.

I heard that Rep. Kolbe took money from Republican leader Tom DeLay's PAC. I urge him to return the money in order to remove any question about the nature of the contribution. Associations with Tom DeLay create the appearance of corruption in our elected officials. I would like him to return the money and please send me a letter explaining his position on this issue.

We encourage you to speak from your heart about this issue when you call—don't feel bound by our suggested script. The person answering the phones should ask for your name and address so they can send you the letter.

After you make your call, click on the link below to let us know how your call went and help us keep a tally of the number of calls made.

http://political.moveon.org/call?tg=FHAZ_08&cp_id=103&id=6081-2966911-yCPGPN_LBOIspPeT3QrvWQ&t=1

I'm actually a little surprised he hasn't given the money back yet. With the way he's outraised his opponents in the last several elections, I would think a measley $5K would be a paltry sum to return, especially when it reeks of corruption.

The fact that Congressman Kolbe did not immediately return DeLay PAC money after the former Leader was indicted can and should be used in next year's election. Corruption breeds corruption; Kolbe would do well to place as much distance between him and his party's leaders as possible.

Then again, let him continue contributing to the accurate impression of cronyism and the District 8 Democrats will finally retake the seat.

So the President has nominated longtime friend and personal attorney Harriet Miers to the seat on the Supreme Court being vacated by Arizona native Sandra Day O'Connor.

WaPo has a profile of Miers.

This isn't the first time the person the President selected to identify who to choose for a certain job ended up with the job. Remember how Cheney was in charge of vetting potential VP nominees in 2000 and ended up identifying himself? The White House Counsel is traditionally responsible for identifying potential Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Nominees.

There is of course obvious concern about the fact that Miers has never been a jurist and has scant record of the kind of judge she would be. Let's see how this confirmation process develops.

What's bugging me is all this talk of balance on the court and whose seat is whose. Seats on the Supreme Court don't belong to the person who occupy them, those seats "belong" to the American people, if they belong to anyone at all. I appreciate the talk of maintaining balance on the Court, but there's no statutory or Constitutional requirement to do so.

Of course any president will nominate someone who he believes shares his idealogical views, despite any protestations about a "litmus test" for nominees. That's his perogative and it's to be expected. I don't him begrudge him that one bit. I wish he wouldn't, but it's his Constitutional right as President of the United States to nominate who he sees fit.

I abhor the idea of the Court moving to the right even a fraction of an inch, but these arguments about Roberts being passable because he doesn't change the political calculus of the court are just intellectually dishonest. Democratic Senators would be better serving their constituents if they focused less on maintaining some kind of imaginary balance on the court and started advocating for a stronger court filled with Justices who share our values and evolving interpretation of the Constitution.

Harriet Miers is a largely unknown quantity beyond her loyalty to this President. Loyalty is not a qualification for the Supreme Court. She may have been a trailblazer in the legal profession as a woman, but that doesn't qualify her either. If she doesn't fit the mold we define for a Supreme Court justice, we have no choice but to oppose her, as we should have opposed Roberts. This is no time for political timidity.

But then, why start standing up for principles now?

Metro Networks/COX:

UMC, Sexual Assault Victim Work Out Settlement
09-30-2005 10:18 AM

(Tucson, AZ) -- University Medical Center has worked out a settlement with one of the three women who were victims of sexual assault while a patient there. Eleanor Torres had filed suit against UMC after Daniel Lugo Perez was convicted of sexually abusing Torres and two other women in the hospital while they were recovering from surgery. The suit claimed the hospital did not notify police of the abuse in a timely manner, nor did it tell police of other abuse cases. The terms of the settlement have not been released, but Torres' attorney says Torres is happy to have the matter behind her.

I hope Ms. Torres got a lot of money from UMC. Besides not properly screening their employees, UMC staff's responses to her and others' initial allegations against Perez are beyond the pale. They dismissed what the victims said, didn't believe them and refused to fulfill their legally mandated roles to report such accusations to law enforcement. Some of these victimizations could have been prevented if UMC responded in a more timely manner.

I had the great honor of meeting Ms. Torres' attorney, Lynn Cadigan, last night at a private event.
She is perhaps best known for her work on behalf of victims of Catholic clergy abuse. Ms. Cadigan is humble, smart and funny. She was the guest speaker at this event and she was downright disarming.

I'm relieved that survivors have such a powerful advocate working on their behalf.

Grover Norquist via MSNBC.com:

And if DeLay survives the charge, watch out. “Tom DeLay is a Christian and may turn the other cheek, but I wouldn’t bet on it.”

Not even Bill Bennett would take a bet with those odds...