If you are looking for the opinions of Professor Ronald D. Rotunda of George Mason University, Professor Geoffrey C. Hazard of University of Pennsylvania and Professor Thomas D. Morgan of George Washington University knocking down the Vanguard conflict of interest assault on Alito, there you go.

More at Blogs for Bush, Political Teen, Flip and Decision 08. The big question the Democrats seem to be all over is not really “should he have recused himself” but “did he tell the Senate he would and then didn’t?” Both Bainbridge and Hawkins asked about this on the Gillespie conference call today, and the concensus is that the question was sidestepped. I still have yet to find his original questionaire from 1990 to see what he actually said. The confirmation hearing itself was pretty much a non-event, with just a few questions from Kennedy, if my recollection of previous reading is correct.

UPDATE: Alito responds. Here’s the WaPo story.

“To the best of my knowledge, I have not ruled on a case for which I had a legal or ethical obligation to recuse myself during my 15 years on the federal bench,” he wrote.

Alito’s letter added a second defense that the White House had not pressed earlier. The 1990 Senate questionnaire dealt with possible conflicts during his “initial service” on the appellate court, Alito noted. “I respectfully submit that it was not inconsistent with my questionnaire response for me to participate in two isolated cases seven and thirteen years later,” he wrote.

And Captain Ed, too, would like to read the original context of the response, but says as scandals go, there’s not much here.

For my part, I don’t find the argument at all compelling. Mutual fund management, as a number of arguments attest, does not equal a material interest in the broker who arranged the sale. I wish I could read the questionnaire itself to see the context in which Alito’s alleged promise of recusal came; rarely do jurists promise to recuse in absolute terms for a hypothetical situation. I agree that issues of recusal in specific cases such as Vanguard should get discussed and debated in the Judiciary Committee with a nominee as it goes to judicial judgment and temperament. The bottom line for me is whether Alito has a pattern of operating from a conflict of interest and if any evidence shows that these skew his court rulings. Clearly in this instance, as his rulings were upheld after his later recusal, this conflict did not.

If this is the biggest point of opposition on Alito, his confirmation certainly seems assured.

Yikes. I’m glad I don’t live next to Jay Tea.

Fascinating.

From two opposite ends of the blogging political spectrum, Michael Krempasky of RedState.org and Markos Moulitsas Zúniga of DailyKos.com have jointly written a letter Congress in opposition of HR 4194.

Excerpt:

As bloggers from the right and left, we don’t often agree on much. But when it comes to free speech online, we couldn’t agree more. We urge you to oppose H.R. 4194, the Shays-Meehan “Internet Anti-Corruption and Free Speech Protection Act of 2005″. We oppose H.R. 4194 primarily because despite claims by its supporters - it does not in fact offer adequate protections for speech and political activity online. In particular:

• It would stifle technological innovation. H.R. 4194 would not adequately protect Internet activity which is not “blogging”, such as already-widely used technologies like podcasting, wikis and peer-to-peer networks, let alone the technologies of tomorrow. In the face of regulatory doubt, no one will want to invest in emerging technologies to enhance citizen participation not clearly protected by the law; and

• It offers no guidance as to the treatment of group political activity, potentially treating all group websites that discuss federal candidates as political committees, with voluminous filing and disclosure requirements, so long as members spent $1000 on server and other costs, an easily-reached amount;

• Its alleged protection to incorporated bloggers offers no real protection. In comments filed before the FEC, supporters of H.R. 4194 have stated explicitly that those websites which endorse, expressly advocate, and urge readers to donate funds to the election of preferred candidates do not qualify for protection under the law. In other words, rather than protecting popular sites like DailyKos.com or FreeRepublic, H.R. 4194 would actually force them to seek counsel and comply with voluminous campaign finance law requirements, stifling and chilling grassroots political activity across the Internet. For those members committed to extending the BCRA rules and regulations to the Internet, it would be preferable to pass no bill at all rather than H.R. 4194, which would only chill free speech and technological growth, and instead wait for the Federal Election Commission to complete its current rulemaking process.

If you’re a blogger and agree with the letter they have written, as I do, ping this.

Peoria Pundit is willing to go to jail.

I’m not going to alter my behavior one little bit. I’m still going to link top politicians’ Web sites. I’m still going to accept donations and run advertising, perhaps from the candidates themselves. Someone associated with a campaign is going to decide this is unfair and file a complaint and if these new rules are in effect, I will be told I must pay a fine. I will not pay that fine. I’ll be perfectly happy to let George Bush’s government pay my room and board for a while.

GM Roper: “Put a notice on your blog, send e-mails to friends letting them know. Do something or this media that we love will change and not for the better. If you really value the First Amendment, do this now!!!!”

Left in Lowell: “This blog site is in jeopardy - after all, I have guest bloggers, take donations and am considering allowing ads on the site to help offset the cost of hosting and the time I spend writing here - I could easily start making more than $1000 per year eventually. If you want to save political internet communities, take action NOW.”

ARC: “Perhaps if Congress had more conservative Republicans than Leftist Democrats, Kos’ 1606 would’ve passed… No doubt Kos will start campaigning for the GOP now. (It’s also intereseting to note that Bernie Sanders (Socialist-VT) who is a darling of the Left (and the most liberal congressman) voted against HR 1606. No doubt Kos will support Bernie’s candidacy for Senate.”

Others on board: Skeptics Eye, New Media Musings, DiGamma, Sneakeasy’s Joint, Matt Johnston, WMDiscussion, And Rightly So, The Cycling Dude.

Tapscott adds “The genuine article is The Online Freedom of Speech Act, H.R. 1606. Make sure your blog readers and your congressman know all the facts on the differences between H.R. 4194 and H.R. 1606. Your freedom of speech could depend upon their knowing the difference.”

Hah.

Alan McKenzie put together a list of offensive terms that are unacceptable in the Hull City Council.

Turns out his list offended a whole bunch of people.

And he has subsequently apologized for being offensive.

For some background, this is an interesting story today from The Hill. “He signed the letter. Wait, no he didn’t.”

But there are some interesting twists in the comments of Trent Lott yesterday.

Senator Trent Lott (R-MS) told CNN’s Ed Henry Tuesday afternoon that he believed it was a Republican senator who gave information about secret CIA jails abroad to the Washington Post, RAW STORY can report.

Lott said that much of the information contained in the Post report — which stated that the U.S. was holding terrorist suspects in secret CIA jails overseas — was discussed at a meeting of Republican senators last Tuesday.

From The Hill story referenced above, the plot thickens:

CNN reported earlier in the day that Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) had said a Republican senator may have leaked information about the so-called black sites to the Post. Lott told reporters yesterday [MZ: 10/9/2005] that he had been talking about another Post article. He said he was not talking about the article about the detention and interrogation facilities.

Atrios is ecstatic:

Money quote from Lott; “We can not remain silent. We have met the enemy, and it is us.”

All just reported on CNN. We are, folks, witnessing the full-on implosion of the national Republican Party. And not a second too soon.

Fair Shot is furious that Cheney met with Republicans alone and shared this info with them in the first place.

But in all of this, the Ginger Man smells something fishy with Lott’s statement.

But I have a number of problems with the Lott scenario all the same:

The Post article simply does not look like something that was dashed off in less than one day on the basis of a leak from a Senator or hill staffer. To the contrary, looking first just at the substance of the thing, it appears to be a throughly researched piece, with a great deal of background and context woven into it, not simply a wad of Capitol Hill dish. Moreover, even allowing for some of the, shall we say, vagaries of how reporters describe anonymous sources, the piece is sourced variously to: “U.S. and foreign officials familiar with the arrangement”; “current and former intelligence officials and diplomats from three continents”; “officials familiar with the program”; “current and former and U.S. and foreign government and intelligence officials”; “four current and former officials”; and, more specifically, in some instances to “a former senior intelligence officer who worked in the CIA’s Counterterrorist Center”; “another former senior CIA official”; and “a senior CIA officer.” If we were dealing with Judith Miller rather than Dana Priest, I might be less credulous, but I’d say it is very safe to say that Priest has at least four sources, probably more — at a minimum, two distinct former CIA officials (part of the Goss purge, no doubt), one current CIA official (that’s one brave hombre), one or more current or former State officials. I would like to think that there’s somebody at Justice with a conscience and a set of cojones as well.

My take on it is this. Real leaks (intentional knowing disclosure) of classified information that are damaging to the security of the United States should be investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Period. If it was a Republican Senator, so be it. National security is a deadly serious matter, and politics and who might get bitten should play no part in whether or not an investigation goes forward.

If (and it’s a big “if”) Bill Frist is hedging because he thinks it may have been a Republican (as The Hill article implies), then he ought to stand up and do the right thing. And Hastert should continue to move forward, even if he got blind sided a few hours early by Drudge.

Aggressive Conservative says “Frist screwed up big time.” In the timing of the news release maybe, but certainly not in calling for the investigation. Again, national security should transcend party lines, and it appears to me that’s the approach Lott is taking and the one Frist should be.

Bob Kaufman rants about how clumsy the administration is, continuing to refer to discussions of already-publicly-known Valerie Plame’s name and employer as a “leak” and goes on with this, which got a chuckle out of me:

Shortly after, Bill Frist flipped, and said that he hadn’t signed the call for an investigation. OOPS. A couple of hours later, he flopped and said he did sign it. DOUBLE OOPS. The C.I.A. had already turned the matter over to the Justice Department.
There are just too many leaks for Bill Frist to handle. After all, he is a surgeon. They need somebody trained to deal with the righteous bunch in Congress. Say, a group urologist.

Alpha Liberal’s site has a pretty clear example of what appeares to me to be a double standard on the left.

Quote 1:

Now is not a time to praise Libby or Rove for their service or to remind America of the due process Bush routinely flaunts. Now is the time to punish those involved for damaging the national security of the country, fire them, and send them home in disgrace. If Bush cannot bring himself to do that, he is not fit to remain President of this nation.

Quote 2 (Five days later):

It is horrifying to know that House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist aren’t demanding to know who authorized such an abomination and why anyone in their right mind would think it would contribute to the security of the United States.

No, Hastert and Frist want a probe into who leaked the news.

Disgraceful.

As our regular readers will recall, this blog was named as a result of the original Rathergate Report which chalked the errors at CBS up to “myopic zeal” rather than ill intention or some form of malice. They didn’t know that the alleged Killian memo was a forgery. And then came the “fake but accurate” mantra (the classic C&F editorial cartoon here).

But now we have something truly amazing, and that is that Mary Mapes continues to insist that she is not convinced the memos were fake. Now apparently, the onus is on the viewer to disprove the truth of an assertion made by a newscaster rather than the burden being on the news producers to prove the authenticity. It’s nearly beyond comprehension that she would take this position (other than to drum up controversy to sell her new book).

Here is the Good Morning America transcript excerpt. (And Ian’s got the video, as usual).

BRIAN ROSS: Do you still think that story was true?

MARY MAPES: The story, absolutely.

ROSS:This seems remarkable to me that you would sit here now and say you still find that story to be up to your standards.

MAPES: I’m perfectly willing to believe that those documents were forgeries if there was proof that I haven’t seen.

ROSS: But isn’t it the other way around, don’t you have to prove they are authentic?

MAPES: Well, I think that’s what critics of this story would say. I know more now than I did then and I think, I think they have not been proved to be false yet.

ROSS: Have they proved to be authentic though, isn’t that really what journalists do?

MAPES: No, I don’t think that’s the standard.

Bernie Goldberg was on H&C last night discussing the situation. Colmes tried this approach (again, via Political Teen).

Later in the segment Colmes tries to make the point that conservatives are hypocrites for not criticizing the forgeries that took us to war. If that was the case, than why are liberals not outraged about the memos that were driven by an overzealous producer who had an agenda? I guess Alan is too caught up in his DNC talking points memo to not realize the double standard.

Jeremy Pepper incredulously reads the WaPo story, and responds with:

Here is a woman that is able to find a conspiracy against her around every corner, and yet does not own up to anything. And, while I do not find CBS’ handling of the affair to be anything to hold up as a great example of crisis communications, at least they did not pass the buck so readily. They might not have fully owned up to the mistakes, but Mapes refuses to at least admit to her part in the crisis and still believes she is right.

Right on the Left Coast thinks she should hook up with the fired Judy Miller, who agreed to leave the Times (Her farewell has been posted on her site).

Check out the alternative book cover here.

Gabe reacts to the story:

Hey just like OJ is still looking for the real killer, Mapes is out there looking for real documents! Honestly I was fully unaware that journalists were under no obligation to present legitimate information when doing TV reporting.

And INDC (via MM and Insty) even finds factual errors in her book (Bill excerpts from page 201):

The Freepers swarmed CBS not because it was right or fair but because they could.

On Web sites such as Powerline, INDC Journal, Allahpundit, and Spacetownusa, the bravehearts of the blogging world worked anonymously in what appeared to be huge numbers, in unison, to destroy the Bush-Guard story, to uphold one another’s wild and hateful claims, to outshout, outargue, and outblog anyone who dared to disagree. And on their Web sites there is no disagreement. They hate in unison, they speak with one angry voice, they each make themselves bigger by staying as close together as possible.

And then goes on to point out:

Even in forced retirement, Mapes continues her legacy of accuracy, as neither Powerline, nor Spacetown, nor INDC Journal worked anonymously during the scandal. I invite everyone to revisit my September archives and peruse the “wild and hateful claims” made by INDC.

And as we reported way back on March 3, of 2005, when she was shopping her book, OpinionMeister said:

You have to feel sorry for a publisher who buys a book that later proves to be a fraud, but how can you feel sorry for a publisher who buys a book that was proven to be a fraud before the rights were purchased.

(Today, even after all of the publicity, it’s ranked 896 on the Amazon hit parade).

UPDATE: Shape of Days reminds us that Michelle Malkin predicted this back on September 16th, 2004.

Proposition 73 was defeated Tuesday in California. While not surprising, it is truly saddening. For those who have not been following closely, here is the summary of Prop 73.

WAITING PERIOD AND PARENTAL NOTIFICATION BEFORE TERMINATION OF MINOR’S PREGNANCY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

- Amends California Constitution, prohibiting abortion for unemancipated minor until 48 hours after physician notifies minor’s parent/legal guardian, except in medical emergency or with parental waiver.
- Defines abortion as causing “death of the unborn child, a child conceived but not yet born.”
- Permits minor to obtain court order waiving notice based on clear, convincing evidence of minor’s maturity or best interests.
- Mandates various reporting requirements.
- Authorizes monetary damages against physicians for violation.
- Requires minor’s consent to abortion, with certain exceptions.
- Permits judicial relief if minor’s consent coerced.

Somewhat ironically, the “Campaign for Teen Safety” - arguing against Prop 73 - says on its website:

We are thankful that Californians rejected Prop 73 which would have put the health and safety of our teenage daughters at risk. Voters rejected sending teens back to the back alleys and re-debating a woman’s right to choose. They voted to reject the politics of fear and religion that the proponents tried to interject into this campaign.

They voted to keep our teens safe.

Choose Life (and here) has this disturbing information:

In California, if your daughter is under 18, she can’t get a flu shot, she can’t go on a school trip, she can’t have a tooth pulled, she can’t get her ears pierced, without your knowing it.

But did you know an older boyfriend or school employee can take your 13-year-old daughter to an abortionist who can perform a surgical or chemical abortion on her without your knowing it?

In California, where minors can receive secret, free (taxpayer-funded) abortions as often as they wish, the number of minors’ abortions is the highest in the country. Perhaps more disturbing is a study of over 46,000 pregnancies of school-age girls in California, which found that over two thirds were impregnated by adult men whose mean age was 22.6 years.

Yes on 73 has 90 phone calls to Planned Parenthood and other California abortion centers. Listen to them here.

Rajan points out that the requirement was notification, not consent.

Prop. 73 makes it compulsory that parents of minor girls getting an abortion would be notified (no consent required). Pro-”choice” groups frequently say that killing prenatal persons, otherwise known as abortion, is merely a medical procedure. Yet in other medical procedures from a minor surgery to chemotherapy requires parental consent, abortion as it turns out should be an exception.

SoCal Pundit does some MMQuarterbacking.

Although the sponsors raised enough money to get the initiative on the ballot (no easy feat I might add) they did not plan for selling it to voters once it was scheduled for a vote. Of all the initiatives on the ballot, Prop. 73 had the least amount on money spent on it. Yet, all the way up to the week before the referendum 73 was polling like it would pass. Then the pro-choice Nazis got to work on it. First they released a brilliant television spot that challenged the viewer to figure out if they were as cynical as the creators of this initiative were. “I trust my daughter and my daughter trusts me”, was the line in that ad that grabbed you. Then a last minute auto-dialed, recorded message phone campaign told horror stories of daughters turned away by their parents seeking back alley abortions… You get the picture. We hurt Prop. 73 by not giving it the same budget for advertising as Prop. 77 and the others.

A New Leif unsuccessfully attempts to dismantle the “ears pierced” defense of Prop 73 here. But she fails to mention that it’s not just ear piercing, it’s any medical procedure. Ear piercing is just the most ridiculous example because it is so much less risky than abortion. She has it backward.

Mankind Minus One misquotes Prop 73, but actually hits on what I believe is the underlying point right.

But worst of all—it was not just a normal proposition. IT PROPOSED A CHANGE TO THE CALIFORNIA CONSITUTION. And in that change, it defined abortion as “murder of an unborn child”. [MZ: No, it said “death” not “murder.”]

But in my opinion, this is really the big problem with getting Prop 73 to pass. Every bullet point on the summary I suggest is passable, had it not been for the definition of abortion containing the word child. If they had replaced that with “fetus” or some other less “person-hood-assigning” term, it would have had a better chance. Pro-abortion voters in California could have supported the completely reasonable measure of parental notification, but they were concerned that defining and unborn baby as a “child” in the California Constitution would have been a huge step toward making abortion illegal. That, of course, is purely my speculation, since I do not live in California and am not a pro-Abortion voter.

If you haven’t seen the moving tributes to America and Great Britain that are being run by the Iraqi Kurds, do it now. Here is a transcript from the first one, but it does not do justice to the video images.

U.S. SPOT # 1 “THANK YOU”
VO NARRATOR:
Saddam’s goal was to bury every living Kurd…
He failed.

KURD CITIZENS:
“Thank you.”
“Thank you, America.”
“Thank you.”

VO NARRATOR:
The Kurds of Iraqi Kurdistan just want to say ‘thank you’…
for helping us win our freedom.

KURD CITIZENS:
“Thank you for democracy.”
“Thank you, America.”

KURDISH HERO GIRL:
“Thank you.”

Gateway Pundit adds the following:

Starting Wednesday, a major national television ad campaign will begin that features Iraqi Kurds thanking the United States for liberating them from Saddam Hussein.

This is the message that has not been reported by the old-line media: the people of Iraq are happy that Saddam is gone and they want to say “Thank You” to America.

The Kurdish region of Iraq is in the northern portion of that nation. Iraqi Kurdistan has been operating with a democracy for more than 10 years (their safety provided by 10-years of air cover by U.S. and British jets in the “No Fly Zone” in Iraq).

Please - go watch these ads. The first one, “Thank You America” is the ad you will be seeing beginning on the Fox News Channel (running nationwide). And make sure you show this to everyone you know. Each time I’ve seen this ad I’ve been nearly brought to tears, seeing these people survive the murderous regime of Saddam Hussein and showing such warm and sincere appreciation for the United States.

Linking to the Political Teen.