Pataki for President

George Pataki ... will he or won't he?

Ah, it's good to be an Iowan!

The Associate Press today writes about the courting already under way of key Iowan political figures by both Republican and Democrat presidential hopefuls.

For instance, "when Iowa Senate Republican leader Stewart Iverson found himself in Washington without a seat for the inaugural parade, New York Gov. George Pataki's staff produced tickets to a parade-watching party and an invitation to lunch.

'Those tickets came right away,' Iverson said."

Poll

Scroll down to the newly added poll on debate08. Who do you think should be the Republican nominee for President? Democrats, weigh in a pick your candidate.

Results will be cleared periodically and posted; candidates will be added and subtracted according to the latest news.

Try and play fair - I know it's difficult - but if you're a Republican, don't vote in the Democrat poll and vice versa.

Hillary '08

Hillary is already picking off Kerry's supports, according to today's Boston Globe ... there is no way she loses a D - primary.

Mrs. Bush predicts...

Hillary will lose in 2008 ... from one First Lady to another [read it here]

Florida: Killing Adults & Arresting Kids

Ten year old child arrested - and dragged off in handcuffs - for trying to give a dying woman a glass of water.

There was a time in this country when this headline would have been seen as a not-so-funny joke ... no longer.

Judges Reign

President Bush today said that he and Congress have done all they can to help Terri Schiavo ... while Marc Siegel in USA Today outlines the terrifying precedents of Terri's life and death decisions being decided by lawyers and Judges, instead of doctors.

The Value of Human Life

In the Netherlands, under the ominous Groningen Protocol, doctors are killing children with deformities - sometimes without the consent of the parents;

... Under the Groningen protocol, if doctors at the hospital think a child is suffering unbearably from a terminal condition, they have the authority to end the child's life. The protocol is likely to be used primarily for newborns, but it covers any child up to age 12.

A parent's role is limited under the protocol. While experts and critics familiar with the policy said a parent's wishes to let a child live or die naturally most likely would be considered, they note that the decision must be professional, so rests with doctors.

2) In the U.K. recently two doctors were not criminally charged in a case where they aborted a fetus because they saw evidence of a cleft palate;

3) In Florida, Terri Schaivo continues to starve to death per the wishes of her husband and rulings from state and federal court;

4) The government of the U.K. supports stem cell research that is tantamount to human cloning.

What - if anything - do these four situations say about the value of human life in our society? How did we come to this? How prominent a role will these issues play in future U.S. elections?

I'd be interested to hear the thoughts of those who believe these are positive developments for society.

LIFE may still yet prevail

UPDATE:

U.S. District Judge James Whittemore has still not determined if Terri Schiavo's feeding tube should be reinserted ... meanwhile she continues to die.

Show your support for Terri and her family.

------------------------------------------

Now that Terri Schiavo has been afforded the same legal rights as Scott Peterson or any other murderer sentenced to death (the right to a review by a federal court) her life still remains in the hands of a one man - a judge.

Iraq War protests

I'm sure you've all been reading of the many Iraq War protests in the U.S., Europe and South America on the 2nd Anniversary of the beginning of the war.

I've been searching the Web for a while now but still haven't found a news story describing any Iraq War protests IN Iraq.

debate

Should the federal government be going to these extraordinary measures - see below - to prolong the life of Terri Schiavo?

Senate Votes For LIFE

The US Senate today - just moments ago - unanimously passed legislation to prolong the life of Terri Schiavo.

House Democrats Choose DEATH

Democrats today blocked an attempt by House Republicans to pass legislation - by voice vote - to prolong the life of Terri Schiavo.

Republicans needed Democrats to allow the passage of the bill "without objection" ... Dems objected and have forced Republicans to gather 218 of the 435 representatives (the minimum number of legislators needed for a roll call) back to Washington. Most lawmakers had left D.C. for their Easter break.

If they get the 218 representatives, Republicans plan to begin session at 12:01 am on Monday; and President Bush has changed his travel plans so he'll be in D.C. to sign any emergency legislation.

A CALL TO ACTION #2

As I posted yesterday, there IS a way you can help Terri Schiavo and her parents. Yes, it's symbolic - but it's powerful.

Send bottled water and non-perishable food to the Hospice Center where Terri is slowly being starved to death:

Hospice House - Woodside
6770 102nd Avenue
Pinellas Park, FL 33782

A CALL TO ACTION

This great idea came to me from an unlikely source ... on probably most political issues lesbiencestmoi and I disagree. But she contacted me with a terrific idea to show support for Terry Schiavo and her parents.

Please click here for lesbiencestmoi's blog, read today's post, and then do what she says!

I've contacted Hugh Hewitt in the hope that he'll broadcast the idea during his national radio show on Monday. Email any and all radio personalities you know and ask them to do the same.

The Power of the Blog got Dan Rather fired ... great. But what if that same power could help save the life of Terri Schiavo?

"It will take one or two weeks for Schiavo to die"

The Terri Schiavo case is taking turn after turn today, and for fear of not being able to keep up and accidentally posting incorrect or out-dated information, I'm avoiding the issue and suggest readers visit Captain's Quarters blog here for the most current news.

But I was struck by the line I've used for my title today, taken from the Miami Herald. This is referring to how long it will take Terry to die after they remove the feeding tube.

Doesn't that say it all? Where are the opponents of the death penalty now, with their cries of cruel and unusual punishment? Even Scott Peterson gets better treatment than this.

Click here for timeline of the events since Terri's collapse in 1990.

Bush says "life"

President's Statement on Terri Schiavo

The case of Terri Schiavo raises complex issues. Yet in instances like this one, where there are serious questions and substantial doubts, our society, our laws, and our courts should have a presumption in favor of life. Those who live at the mercy of others deserve our special care and concern. It should be our goal as a nation to build a culture of life, where all Americans are valued, welcomed, and protected - and that culture of life must extend to individuals with disabilities.

# # #

If a doctor kills, is it murder?

Cleft lip abortion done 'in good faith' ... A British court dropped charges against two doctors who aborted a child because he/she had a cleft palate ... the mother was over 6 months pregnant at the time.

Put your $ where your mouth is...

Place your bets on the 2008 Presidential Nominees here.

Dems get tough

In their latest issue,The New Yorker writes about the new and improved, hawkish Democrat ...

Senator Joe Biden "has become a leader of a modest-sized faction—'the national-security Democrats,' in the words of Richard Holbrooke, an ambassador to the United Nations under President Clinton—that includes the most hawkish members in the Democratic Party. Among them are Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, the former Vice-Presidential candidate John Edwards, Senator Evan Bayh, of Indiana, and Governor Bill Richardson, of New Mexico"

Notice that ALL are contenders for the Democrats 2008 Presidential nomination.

[Read the full article here]

CA Gay Marriage Ban "unconstitutional"

In 2000, 61% of voting Californians voted YES on Proposition 22 (Defense of Marriage Act), which defined marriage as "between one man and one woman."

In raw numbers: 4,618,673 votes were cast in favor of the proposition for 61.4% of the total vote. Opponents garnered 2,909,370 votes, for 38.6% of the vote

But now one Judge has thwarted the will of the majority calling the ban unconstitutional.

Read it here.

Size Matters

Anti-Syrian protestors marched in Lebanon today in what may have been the largest demonstration for Lebanese free-rule of its kind in the region.

Today's show of support from the pro-Lebanon, anti-Syria movement follows two similar protests from the pro-Syrians, during which thousands were bused into the region to boost the numbers. Today's march needed to be big ... bigger than the previous demonstrations.

And it was.

Earlier today Hugh Hewitt interviewed Claudia Rosett who is in Lebanon ... she reports the number above 1 million. [Read her report previous report here]

But both the BBC and NPR tonight report the number in the "hundreds of thousands"

Is it surprising that these two news agencies would lowball the number? Or, a fair question is, did they lowball the number?

This may seem trivial to some, but don't make that mistake. Forget the fact that the world's watching ... the rest of the region - namely Iran - is watching.

The fire that was ignited with the assassination of the former President of Lebanon has spread across the land and may yet spill into Iran.

Demonstrations such as this will play a important role in making that happen.

A good read ...

Once you've debated 08, check out decision08

What's Dean hiding?

Howard Dean, the newly elected head of the DNC, left the Governor's mansion in Vermont in 2003, but not before sealing 86 boxes of documents for 10 years - the longest period of time documents have been sealed by a Vermont Governor.

Why?

Dean told reporters in 2003 that they were sealed because "we [Dean, Sec. of State Deborah Markowitz and Attorney General William Sorrell] didn't want anything embarrassing appearing in the papers at a critical time in any future endeavor."

Hmm. Okay. Anyone else have a problem with that?

A Vermont Judge had recently ordered Dean & Co. to explain - for every single document - why it should be covered under executive privilege and sealed from the public. Tomorrow the Vermont Supreme Court will hear an appeal from the state on why the documents should remain sealed.

Should a Governor be able to seal documents for ten years? For less or more time? For no time at all?

What about the President? Should the media, citizens, and the entire world have complete access to every document in the White House, immediately after a change in administration? I think we can all agree that that's a bad idea (unless you own stock in a paper shredder manufacturer)

But what exactly was going on in Vermont that's so sensitive to warrant a decade-long public ban?

"I won't"

Secretary Rice this morning on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos was once again asked about a run for President in 2008:

"I don't know how many times to say no ... I won't, how's that?"

Secretary Rice: A "mildly pro-choice" Republican; does no rule out 2008 run

In a Washington Times interview [full transcript here; Times article here], Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice did not rule out a run for the presidency in 2008.

Of the 7,800 word exchange only 1,000 were dedicated to topics other than foreign policy, the 2008 election and abortion specifically.

When asked if she was ruling out a run in 2008 Rice responded, "Oh, that's not fair, but ... I really can't imagine it."

And then the topic turned to abortion:

I believe if you go back to 2000, when I helped the president in the campaign, I said that I was, in effect, kind of Libertarian on this issue, and meaning by that that I have been concerned about a government role in this issue. I'm a strong proponent of parental choice, of parental notification. I'm a strong proponent of a ban on late-term abortion. These are all things that I think unite people and I think that that's where we should be. I've called myself at times mildly pro-choice ...

... I'm very comfortable with the president's view that we have to respect and need to have a culture that respects life. This should be an issue pretty infrequently because we ought to have a culture that says that, "Who wants to have an abortion? Who wants to see a daughter or a friend or, you know, a sibling go through something like that?" And so I believe the president has been in exactly the right place about this, which is, we have to respect the culture of life and we have to try and bring people to have respect for it and make this as rare a circumstance as possible.

And on issues of faith Rice also echoes President Bush:

... my faith is a part of everything that I do. You know, it's integral to who I am and it's not something that I can set outside of anything that I do because it's so integral to who I am. And prayer is very important to me and a belief that if you ask for it, you will be guided.

Would Republicans nominate a "mildly pro-choice" Republican, even one of faith?

Ironically, Rice's rhetoric on abortion here is almost identical to the dramatic shift made by Hillary earlier this year.

It's the age-old political balancing act:

Hillary is trying to soften her views on abortion to look more electable and have appeal to moderate Republicans and Independents after she's captured the D-Nomination. But she can't go too soft if she wants the nomination.

By contrast, if Rice was to run for the White House, would she need to harden her views to capture the R-Nomination? And how would that play out against Hillary in the General Election?

Is it conceivable that Hillary and Rice could sound virtually identical on the most contentious issue in politics? (Of course, that's if anyone really beleives Hillary's obvious pandering)

Another unanswered question: Is Rice capable of adjusting her deeply held political views to win an election? She's never had to do it before ... only time will tell.

Bye, Bye Dan

Tonight is Dan Rather's last night of anchoring the CBS Evening News ... and he's going out with a "candid memoir" on his 24 years behind the desk.

Remember to commemorate his farewell with a witty t-shirt from iHeartBloggers.com

I Broke My Blog...

For some odd reason my right sidebar is defaulting to the bottom of the page ... the good folks at Blogger.com are on the case, and I'm sure we'll be back to normal soon.

In the meantime, if you're looking for a list of recent posts or a list of my links, you'll need to scroll to the bottom of the page. Feel free to read your way down!

Hillary v. Rudy, again?

Results at a glance of a poll released today by Marist College's Institute for Public Opinion

If the 2008 Democratic presidential primary were held today, whom would you support if the candidates are:

Hillary Clinton 39%
John Kerry 21%
John Edwards 15%
Joe Biden 5%
Wesley Clark 4%
Russ Feingold 2%
Bill Richardson 2%
Evan Bayh 1%
Mark Warner 1%
Tom Vilsack <1%
Undecided 10%

If the 2008 Republican presidential primary were held today, whom would you support if the candidates are:

Rudy Giuliani 25%
John McCain 21%
Condoleezza Rice 14%
Jeb Bush 7%
Newt Gingrich 5%
Bill Frist 3%
Bill Owens 2%
Mitt Romney 1%
Rick Santorum 1%
George Pataki 1%
Chuck Hagel <1%
George Allen <1%
Undecided 20%

Head-to-head match ups:

In Hillary v. Rudy, she goes down, 49% - 47%

Against John McCain, Hillary is beat, 54% - 42%

Rudy beats John Kerry, 50% - 44%

McCain beats Kerry by 18% and Edwards by 12%

Of the 1,009 Americans polled, 851 are registered voters with 427 Democrat or leaning that way and 347 Republican or leaning that way.

Goodbye Mr. Rather

For all those who are pleased to see Dan Rather go on Wednesday and appreciate the power of the Blog that gave him the boot ... check out these tee-shirts.

Visit the site here, iHeartBloggers.com

I Fought the Blog ... And the Blog Won

"Playing with fire"

Iran's Hasan Rowhani said today that any attempt by Washington to make Iran's temporary suspension of uranium enrichment permanent would "cause additional problems for America"

Rowhani warned that Iran will halt negotiations and resume uranium enrichment "without any hesitation" if negotiators insist Iran make its temporary suspension of uranium enrichment permanent.

"Therefore, no one will benefit from this. It's playing with fire."

"If there is no U.S. pressure, we will reach a compromise with Europeans in the near future," Rowhani said. "Europeans are not seeking a permanent halt to our peaceful nuclear program and denying the Iranian nation of its rights."

Exactly ... a "compromise" that gives Iran nuclear weapons. That's why the U.S. must - and under President Bush, will - continue to apply "pressure."

Oh, and by the way Mr. Rowhani, last time I checked, America - and President Bush - did not respond well to threats.

A President from Utah?!?

Thanks to Davidson Law for his comment about adding Mike Leavitt, former Governor of Utah, to our list of "Governors to President"

I honestly had not thought of him ... I wonder how The Left would react to a President from Utah?

But, unfortunatley, Blogging Airman had trouble with the question and wonders why my list didn't include Condi (I hate when people call her that) Rice, Zell Miller etc.

Of course, if he had read the title of the post Governors to President, he'd realize why people who have never been Governor are not on the list. You can only lead a horse to water, as they say.

Not to worry, it happens to the best of us ... thanks for the comments, keep 'em comming.

From Governor to President

Both political parties understand the benefits of nominating a Governor for President; no pesky Congressional voting record to defend.

Here's a run-down of the top Governor's eyeing the White House:

Democrats
Tom Vilsack, IA: Early favorite to win the Iowa caucuses.
Mark Warner, VA: A Southern Democrat? That's unheard of!
Phil Bredesen, TN: Would he lose home state like Al Gore did?
Bill Richardson, NM: Too liberal for America ... perfect for the Nomination.
Jennifer Granholm, MI: Canadian-born; she's on the Go Arnie Go! campaign.
Janet Napolitano, AZ: McCain as GOP'er would keep it all in the family.
Rod Blagojevich, IL: Isn't there a rule that we have to be able to pronounce the name of our President?

Republicans
Arnold Schwarzenegger, CA: Oh, right ... forget the comment about Blagojevich.
Mitt Romney, MA: Not another Boston Red Sox fan!
George Pataki, NY: What about Rudy?
Jeb Bush, FL: We'll rename the White House, Bush Place.
Haley Barbour, MS: No name ID west of the river.
Mike Huckabee, AR: I Heart Huckabees was a very odd movie
Mark Sanford, SC: Close ties to John McCain ... would he run against him?
Bill Owens, CO: Popular Governor, but suffered political losses in '04

You Tell Me:

Of the list above, who are your choices for the Nominations?

Info. from Washington Post

Iran

Israel and the U.S. can not wait until Iran has nuclear capabilities ... and they're on their way as reported today (or tomorrow in Vienna) by the Associated Press.

No closure for many families of 9-11 victims

New York authorities finally ended efforts last week to identify victims of the 9-11 attacks.

42% of the dead - 1,164 people - have not been linked to remains.

NY medical examiners have 9,720 unidentified bone and tissue fragments but their DNA is either deteriorated or missing altogether making further positive matches impossible with current technology.

"At first it was a great blow," said Anne Mulderry, whose son Stephen's remains were identified. "But afterwards it was a great comfort when his remains were found ... I do pray for people who have not been allowed that."

We should all join in that prayer.

"Robed Masters"

Yesterday, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Scalia, along with Justice Thomas and Chief Justice Rehnquist, dissented in the case of Ropper v. Simmons.

Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion in this case overruled the laws of 18 states that allow for the execution of minors in extreme cases of first degree murder ... this opinion also reversed a 1989 opinion by the Supreme Court that allowed states to execute those convicted of a capital crime who are over 15 years of age but under 18 years of age.

A debate over whether we should sentence minors to death in America can be placed on hold for another day.

The alarming issue I wish to discuss here is that five un-elected judges, "Robed Masters" according to Scalia, have overturned the will of the people in 18 states on this issue ... and based on what?

Kennedy cites "evidence of [a] national consensus against the death penalty for juveniles" that was not apparent in '89 ... but not in those 18 states, I'm willing to bet.

He then incredibly cites, "Article 37 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which every country in the world has ratified save for the United States and Somalia, [which] contains an express prohibition on capital punishment for crimes committed by juveniles under 18"

In other words ... if other countries don't execute juveniles, then neither should we.

In the opening remarks of his dissent, Scalia fires back:

"In urging approval of a constitution that gave life-tenured judges the power to nullify laws enacted by the people's representatives, Alexander Hamilton assured the citizens of New York that there was little risk in this, since [t]he judiciary ha[s] neither FORCE nor WILL but merely judgment. The Federalist No. 78, p. 465 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961).

But Hamilton had in mind a traditional judiciary, bound down by strict rules and precedents which serve to define and point out their duty in every particular case that comes before them. Id., at 471.

Bound down, indeed.

What a mockery today's opinion makes of Hamilton's expectation, announcing the Court's conclusion that the meaning of our Constitution has changed over the past 15 years not, mind you, that this Court' s decision 15 years ago was wrong, but that the Constitution has changed.

The Court reaches this implausible result by purporting to advert, not to the original meaning of the Eighth Amendment, but to the evolving standards of decency, ante, at 6 (internal quotation marks omitted), of our national society.

It then finds, on the flimsiest of grounds, that a national consensus which could not be perceived in our people’s laws barely 15 years ago now solidly exists. Worse still, the Court says in so many words that what our people's laws say about the issue does not, in the last analysis, matter: "[I]n the end our own judgment will be brought to bear on the question of the acceptability of the death penalty under the Eighth Amendment" Ante, at 9 (internal quotation marks omitted).

The Court thus proclaims itself sole arbiter of our Nation's moral standards and in the course of discharging that awesome responsibility purports to take guidance from the views of foreign courts and legislatures.

Because I do not believe that the meaning of our Eighth Amendment, any more than the meaning of other provisions of our Constitution, should be determined by the subjective views of five Members of this Court and like-minded foreigners, I dissent.


Scalia is absolutely right ... whether you agree with Kenndy et. all or not, it should be very troubling to see these "Robed Masters" take it upon themselves to overturn the will of the people in almost half the states in the union.

You can read Scalia's opinion in full here, or Kennedy's here.