Columbus Dispatch: Ohio’s inspector general is investigating why a state agency director approved checking the state child-support computer system for information on “Joe the Plumber.” Helen Jones-Kelly, director of the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, confirmed today that she OK’d the check on Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher following the Oct. 15 presidential debate. She said there were no political reasons for the check on the sudden presidential campaign fixture though the Support Enforcement Tracking System. Amid questions from the media and others about “Joe the Plumber,” Jones-Kelley said she approved a check to determine if he was current on any ordered child-support payments.

Democrats won't care about this at all – which was also at least the 4th time state computers were used to access his information. To them, the fact that Joe was just asking a question and might hurt their Lord in his run to the White House means that he is to be torn down and smeared right away. The means are justified. They are just doing us a public service. That is really how they think. By the way, as we know by now, Joe's kid lives with him. So who would he owe money to? Himself?

Oh, and Helen Jones-Kelley has maxed out to Obama. Governor Strickland, according to his spokesman, is "satisfied that there are no political overtures to the check on Wurzelbacher (Joe)." Yep. Sure. Move along, nothing to see here.

Joe the Plumber may turn into Joe the Litigant. Jones-Kelley will probably get a promotion to another department when the election is over. Or maybe a position with HHS in an Obama Administration.

Did this happen in Cuyahoga County too?

Unrelated: What is Bill O'Neill talking about? Last time I checked, Steve LaTourette voted against the bailout. Twice. Bill O'Neill was for it. The bailout money in part was used to buy National City Bank and kill Cleveland jobs. I don't get how his own press release in any way helps O'Neill.

"There is no question that western Pennsylvania is a racist area."
- Congressman Jack Murtha, D-Racist Area / 12th CD, PA. Here is the video of his statements.

People in this district…..I don't know why you keep voting for this guy. Actually, I do, it is all the pork he brings home to his gerrymandered district. 18 terms for this guy. He is the House version of Robert Byrd, minus being a former Klan leader. In the interview, Murtha also defends his slandering of 8 Marines, 7 of which have seen their charges dismissed, with one still waiting trial. Pork aside, don't people in his district get tired of listening to Murtha, especially now after he just insulted you.

Murtha is running against Lieutenant Colonel William T. Russell in 2008. Murtha needs to lose.

If there was ever a reason against gerrymandering, one just needs to take a look at the shape of Murtha's district. Ohioans take note. This is what will happen if the Democrats take control of the apportionment board and redraw the districts in their favor.

Powerline: I suppose Murtha deserves a certain amount of credit–Barack Obama waited until he was talking to friends in San Francisco to call Pennsylvanians racists, whereas Murtha insults them to their faces!

DEBATE: It is 4AM and I just finished watching the debate replay. McCain vowed to kick Obama's "you know what." He did. He kicked his ass, and I didn't say that the first two times. Hope I can say that here. And I hope it isn't too little too late. I could make 1000 points but how can Senator Government say it is true that every single McCain ad has been negative. That is flat out not true. It is scary that Obama can just sit there and casually lie about so many different things while on stage. Anyways, for those of us who have followed this campaign and supported McCain since he became the nominee, we are kind of wondering where this has been. My only complaint is that McCain still didn't do a good enough job making Obama look like the dare I say it, socialist that he is. But more so than the first two I have a feeling that McCain scored major points with the American people Wednesday night. McCain was on the offense. As always, we shall see. Pretty solid job by the moderator.

Line of the night, clearly: "Senator Obama, I am not President Bush. If you wanted to run against President Bush, you should have run four years ago."

19 days to go. It is the homestretch. It is here.

Wow. Everyone check their 401Ks. The Democratic Dow Jones Industrial Average fell almost 1000 points today! Like I said in the comments last night, McCain has seen the bottom. The economy, barring something very unforeseen, has hurt him as much as it can. It was a lot. It has to suck to see the stock market do well and know it could hurt your preferred candidate's chances. (Sorry my funny graphic stopped working, I had to delete it).

ACORN has been in the news, well everywhere, and now it is Ohio's turn again. I don't think this story is going away with one of the two candidates being involved with them. Cuyahoga County of all places wants to investigate.

3 of the 5 tracking polls closed for McCain today. Gallup went in The One's direction. Battleground stayed the same. Extremely accurate in 2004 IBD/TIPP started their daily tracker today. Obama +2. Yep, time to give up.

The replacement for the GOP's disgraced Mark Foley has his own problems. I like how Mahoney calls for an investigation of himself. Here's betting the "investigation" won't be completed until after Nov. 4.

And Obama wants a 90 day moratorium on home foreclosures. Why stop there? ACORN wants a year. Why have any at all? Pandering at it's best here.

Has anyone else noticed that the reporting of how many people are at a political rally has basically stopped? I wonder why that is. Maybe, just maybe, that is because McCain/Palin draw as many people as their opponents now, and in some cases more.

John McCain doesn't like being compared to George Wallace (video below). Who would have thought. He does complain that the other side can say whatever and not have to apologize…..that is just is how it is. He should know that by now.

It is obviously a blatant financial conflict of interest: Ifill has a pro-Obama book coming out. It is clear cut. If Obama wins, she makes more money. A lot more. Hence, the term "moderator" is being thrown around a little loosely here. There is also obviously the fact that she has shown disdain (video) for Sarah Palin before as well. If I was a Democrat I would be embarrassed by this (They won't see the problem. But if Sam Alito shoots off a firework that was brought across state lines when he was 15 then he is unfit to be considered for the Supreme Court). It would be like Bill Kristol being the moderator. If that was the case, really not a question the left-wingers would be claiming that Kristol was feeding questions to the Republican in advance. Apparently no one directly affiliated with the DNC or those minting the Obama coins were available tomorrow night.

Is it possible McCain's campaign didn't know about her book until the last 24 hours? Sure, I guess. If so, it is probably one reason why we are down a few in the polls. Or maybe now they have a built in excuse, and that is what they want. Either way, they or their surrogates agreed to it, so no use in them complaining about it now (I still can). If Palin does a good job then it doesn't matter. That is my advice. Just give a great performance, Governor Palin, like Dick Cheney did against John Edwards in 2004 when Ifill moderated. We all remember that beat down. Oh, and maybe give Ifill a compliment on her book during her opening statement and wish her good luck. If Palin does not say something, 90% of those watching will have no idea about Ifill's upcoming journalistic venture.

Can you even imagine if someone who wrote a pro-McCain book was to moderate the second debate? There would be mass hysteria on all morning shows, on all evening newscasts, and in all newspapers. All the lefty blogs would chime in, and new ones would be started just to discuss the unfairness of it. Don't forget, I complimented Jim Lehrer after the first debate. He did a good job. Then again, he doesn't have a book upcoming about one of the two candidates. The media is no longer just in the tank for the Democrats; they are so brazen as to not care that you know it.

In other news, Nancy Pelosi pays her husband with her PAC money. Most ethical Congress ever, continued. It is almost laughable that this just flies under the radar. But it isn't funny. They just get away with it.

I am going to watch playoff baseball and take the rest of the day off. Bye.

Sorry Joe Biden, I didn't take Amtrak. Do you ride that or something? Think I heard something about that. One of our readers got married and I attended the out of state festivities. That is how much I really care about all the people who visit this site. Anyhow, in my absence, two things happened.

1. Obama did get his poll bump. It was to be expected. We will know where this race really stands by the end of next week. Once the convention bounces are gone and the Labor Day polling is out things will clear up. I expect Obama to be up around 3-4 points at that time. That is still better position than McCain could have dreamed about being in headed into the debates. If he can keep it to a small deficit like that, he can win. And likely will.

2. Not surprised at all at the disgusting levels of attacks on Palin and her family. I think we all knew it was coming – but the intensity and hatred even caught me off guard. Yet I am scum because I want to know why community organizer Barack Obama is good friends with a guy who thinks it is fine to bomb the United States Capitol. That is off limits and dishonorable to talk about. Same with Reverend Wright. Makes perfect sense. It is shameful that Palin has to go through this – it is why so many qualified people on both sides of the political spectrum don't ever want to run for office. Prepare to have your life destroyed. And not only your own, but that of your family.

There have been more questions about Palin and her family from this deranged media than we have seen directed towards Obama about his family and friends since he announced his run. I would describe it as appalling and revolting. Democrats and their media companions are so obviously scared of Palin it couldn't be more transparent. These tactics will backfire……………

*Hey remember all those media members and Democrats saying John Edwards didn't have enough experience in 2004? Me either. Great new ad from McCain comparing the experience of Palin to that of the most liberal United States Senator, Barack Obama. Democrats, John McCain has the experience the ticket needs. He didn't need to go with a Joe Amtrak Biden type pick to make up for his shortcomings.

*Looks like we are doing that live blog thing tonight. Good times. If Palin gives a great speech tonight, well, Democrats are going to be nervous. And that will explain why the attacks get more vicious.

*Biggest difference so far between the conventions: Democrats parade people up there who whine and complain about how America is so terrible and how they just can't make it in this cruel world. This week has been the opposite so far.

*That Fred Thompson guy should have run for President.

See you tonight. She is going to bring the roof down at "The House That Norm Built." It is an exciting night for Republicans, even if she isn't a frequent Amtrak user.

A glimpse into the potential future of free speech.

AP: Barack Obama is striking back fiercely and swiftly to stamp out an ad that links him to a 1960s radical, eager to demonstrate a far more aggressive response to attacks than John Kerry did when faced with the 2004 "Swift Boat" campaign.

Obama not only aired a response ad to the spot linking him to William Ayers, but he sought to block stations the commercial by warning station managers and asking the Justice Department to intervene. The campaign also planned to compel advertisers to pressure stations that continue to air the anti-Obama commercial.

Some success so far on this front, as Fox News and CNN have refused to run the ad (which can be watched after the jump), which is being put out and paid for by the American Issues Project. The ad is brutal, which explains why Obama wants to kill it off (like living babies who survive abortions).

It is kind of a damned if you damned if you don't situation for Team Obama here. Obama wanted to respond, but now the MSM might have to actually cover the story. He knows it can't be good to be linked to Ayers, but that is his own doing – it is pretty clear he isn't just "a guy who lives in my neighborhood," as many people, including Hillary Clinton have pointed out. The way I see it, his counter ad raises more questions that it does provide answers along with reinforcing the fact that indeed, they are friends and Obama started his political career in the living room of someone who planted bombs in the U.S. Capitol, the Pentagon, and police stations, and said he felt he "didn't do enough" in 2001. So, as of 2001, Ayers still promoted terrorism. Obama is (was?) still friends with him until recent scrutiny came.

Obama's piece asks, "Why is McCain talking about the sixties?" McCain didn't run the ad (which Obama's ad tries to get you to think), but the original ad does address the recent relationship between Obama and Ayers. The counter commercial ignores that aspect. The Obama ad goes on to say Obama was only 8 when Ayers committed these acts. Obama wasn't 8 when he was launching his political career with a fund raiser at the Ayers house, so that doesn't really fly. Senator Obama willingly linked himself to Ayers. That has nothing to do with John McCain.

This Obama rebuttal was one of the worst political ads ever and I think they will regret running it. In related news, this morning the records from the Chicago Annenberg Challenge will be unsealed. I don't pretend to know what is in them, but I do know I will be waiting to find out. Obama was chairman of the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a foundation where Ayers was a founder. That is the "left-wing board" the original ad refers to. My only prediction is that we find out that Ayers was not "just a guy in my neighborhood" and the connection between the two runs much deeper.

Funny: "Veeps" at johnmccain.com, a take off on "The Sims."

As more details now emerge about how John Edwards was probably not being 99% honest, a lot of Democrats are saying that they avoided disaster in Edwards not getting the nomination. Maybe. But Edwards was never going to win it – it was always going to be Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton (not Rodham). But here is my question. Obviously the Democrats desperately want to win back the White House. What really would have happened if Edwards had somehow won? Would another nominee have wrestled the nomination away from him in Denver in a convention floor fight? Would Edwards have stepped aside? Or would Democrats have circled the wagons around Edwards? I tend to think the latter. You?

I thought Edwards came across as lawyerly. He did not answer the questions he was asked, but rather used them as a jumping off point to go into prepared remarks. He seemed to smile out of satisfaction at his own answers. He passed on the big issues and vigorously refuted minor details. For example, when asked if the blurry picture in the National Inquirer of him holding Reille Hunter's child was real, he responded by saying that he had held many children on the campaign trail for pictures and it was impossible to know. When asked about hush money, he said he had no knowledge and anyone who suggests he knew is lying. He also made an effort to try to go after the National Enquirer and dismiss their reporting. The problem is that they got this story right. Edwards left a lot of questions unanswered and following the hush money that was paid to Ms. Hunter will keep this story going for some time. I did not think Edwards helped himself last night, especially by saying "he would love to" have a paternity test. Not good.

As far as the 2008 race is concerned, I don't think this story will have much impact. Democrats benefit from this story coming out before our convention, where Edwards would have likely had a prime time spot. It is unfortunate that we will lost Edwards as a surrogate. Many Democrats, including myself, were fans of his and it is unfortunate to see him self-destruct this way. North Carolina was leaning McCain and I'm not sure what impact, if any, this story will have on those numbers.

Share your thoughts on the interview or the scandal in the comments.

Saturday morning update: I'm watching a National Enquirer reporter on CNN. What a week for the Enquirer. They have helped legitimize themselves by getting this right. Looks like Fox News has some competition.

Those who like to criticize (and I would say with some justification) the Bush Administration for having a pattern of releasing bad news on Friday afternoons will appreciate what John Edwards did today.

After repeated denials of the rumors swirling around him, Edwards started to come clean today about what he had called "tabloid trash". Probably just a coincidence that the Opening Ceremonies will be shown tonight on TV. And that it is a Friday afternoon in August. And that Obama started his vacation today so he won't be forced to address it.

Favorite excerpt: Edwards denied paying any money to Hunter to keep her from going public but said it was possible some of his friends or supporters may have made payments without telling him. Sure, it's possible some of his friends just decided to start paying Edwards's mistress and John himself didn't know. Sure.

I suppose Wikipedia can unlock that page now. The media didn't want to touch the story before, but there isn't a choice now.

Probably a lot more to say, but after all, it is a summertime Friday afternoon and the Olympics start tonight. Edwards insulted the intelligence of anyone who followed the story with his repeated lies.

David Shuster: Media was a victim.

"Guess what? I got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell." I don't think there will be any objections to working that classic reference into a post here. Anyhow….

I'm not sure that anyone was shocked (or even remotely surprised) by Monday's joint FBI and IRS raid in Cleveland. How could you be? Everyone has known for a long, long time how the game is played in Cuyahoga County. The top two targets are County Auditor Frank Russo and County Commissioner and Chairman of the Cuyahoga County Democratic Party Jimmy Dimora. The FBI served search warrants at the Cuyahoga County administration building, the data center, the county engineer's office and the homes of the two gents named above. The federal investigation revolves around on allegations that Dimora and Russo, among other things, traded jobs and county contracts for improvements to their own homes and properties.

Jill at Writes Likes She Talks has PDF's of the search warrant and items taken during the raids.

Cleveland Scene (who recently merged with the Free Times) ran an absolutely great piece on Jimmy Dimora back in January of 2007. This excerpt from the piece summed it up pretty well: But this is how things work in Jimmy's county, where a check with enough zeroes can take care of anything. He's an old-time political boss in the truest sense of the word. Yet while the urban bosses of old made sure to care for the people before fattening up themselves, Jimmy forgot the part about the people.

Typically when the FBI swarms on your office and house, that is not a good sign. They just don't do it to do it.

And on all top of this, the morning the story comes out, the house of Cleveland Councilman Joe Cimperman goes up in flames early that same morning. Ruled arson. Not even going to speculate on that.

"Probably just a Republican attempt to (fill in the blank)," is the line we might hear from a few Democrats. Sometimes that works. It won't this time. Not when basically every elected official in the county is a Democrat. But it won't matter politically. A new batch of Democrats will rise to power in the county and the same story will be written on a blog by someone in approximately 20 years.

On a side note, I was in Cleveland for the first time since October yesterday. It is about as bad I remembered it.

However, Republicans have their own problems to worry about in Alaska………..

Then Tuesday, the long awaited indictment of Ted Stevens (R-his house and bank account) in Alaska finally came down while I was participating in lunch activities with some former co-workers.

Facts on the case in a brief summary: The facts are these: In 2000, Stevens ordered an extensive home-improvement project that nearly doubled the size of his house. The contractors who did the work were told to send the invoices first to VECO Corp., an oil-field-services company whose two top executives have pleaded guilty to bribing Alaska state legislators. VECO then sent the bills to Stevens, which he paid out of a separate account set up for the project. Even if VECO sent Stevens all the invoices it received (and that remains an open question), there is no question that Stevens involved himself in a shadowy financial arrangement with a company known for its corrupt practices.

This is one seat that should stay in Republican hands forever, but maybe not now. For too long Ted Stevens has used his office to benefit Ted Stevens. It's about time he left the political scene. May as well do so now, before he is forced to do so. Republicans should try to force Stevens out and rally around whoever wins the GOP Primary August 26nd if it isn't Stevens (David Cuddy looks like the best GOP alternative right now). And if Stevens wins the primary, well, this seat is as good as gone. He sure isn't stepping aside then because he will think he can win – the man has an ego the size of the state he represents (term used loosely). He will lose the seat and lose a safe Republican seat in the process. Job well done.

Hopefully after 2006 the people that make the critical decisions within the GOP have learned their lesson. Stevens is a symbol of everything that voters perceive is wrong with our party. If he is somehow found "not guilty" of the criminal charges, he is still guilty of being ethically challenged. Only 100 lucky people in this entire country can be United States Senators. Ted Stevens should not be one of them. Hard working GOP Senators (like John Sununu, John Cornyn, and others) don't deserve to be lumped together with Stevens. Now they will.

I've have often criticized Stevens in the past, so I am not doing any bandwagon jumping: Here, here, here, and here.

As the MSM blackout of the John Edwards story continues, Mr. Edwards found another friend today in Wikipedia. They have locked the page of the former North Carolina Senator so no one can edit it. Some of you might need to click on that first link above to read about the alleged situation regarding Edwards. I talked to two Democrats tonight who follow politics fairly closely and was met with silence when this was brought up. They had no idea what I was talking about. If no one reports it, then it really isn't all that surprising.

My guess is that most "reputable" newspapers and television outlets won't print the Edwards story because it was reported by the National Enquirer. I ask, why are they protecting John Edwards of all people? How long would this story or one similar from the Enquirer about a Republican would be kept quiet? MSM outlets had no reservations about jumping all over the reporting about Rush Limbaugh in the Enquirer as I recall. FoxNews.com talked to a security guard who works at the hotel who confirmed the story, but that is about it in this case.

Truthfully, I don't care what Edwards does in his personal (or public) life. If the story turns out to be true, you won't read a post on it from me. In my eyes he is a non-factor, non-office holder these days and was never going to be Obama's VP nominee. It is just curious to me that this story is not getting any attention given that he is still out doing public appearances. There were about 3 or 4 places this weekend alone I saw stories about the alleged Matthew Broderick cheating on Sarah Jessica Parker story, first reported in Star Magazine (as reported by LA Times bloggers who are forbidden from writing about Edwards). It was even on AOL News – the page where you sign in. It was everywhere. How is that any different? I'm not trying to turn this into Page Six here, just trying to figure out why the silence? That is the most important question at this point and the only one worthy of getting to the bottom of here. Note: This first came up back in December 2007 and was ignored once by the MSM, but the Enquirer stayed on the story.

As it turns out, Wikipedia is actually now drawing more attention to the story through their actions. Maybe Wikipedia will start to lock all of their pages to protect everyone from rumors and speculation? No, they won't.

Mickey Kaus: Will this be the first presidential-contender level scandal to occur completely in the undernews, without ever being reported in the cautious, respectable MSM? Looking like it.

Poll Update: Shocking poll from USAToday/Gallup, showing McCain +4. Ahhh, would be nice, but probably an outlier. The RCP Average of Obama +3.2 (currently) looks about right to me.

I was watching Brit Hume's show tonight on FNC, which happens to be my favorite news show. Yeah I know, of course, I am a Republican. They ran a horrible piece from San Francisco.

Writing about stories like this is not fun.

Here are the basics from the San Francisco Chronicle:

The man charged with killing a father and two sons on a San Francisco street last month was one of the youths who benefited from the city's long-standing practice of shielding illegal immigrant juveniles who committed felonies from possible deportation, The Chronicle has learned.

Edwin Ramos, now 21, is being held on three counts of murder in the June 22 deaths of Tony Bologna, 48, and his sons Michael, 20, and Matthew, 16. They were shot near their home in the Excelsior district when Tony Bologna, driving home from a family picnic, briefly blocked the gunman's car from completing a left turn down a narrow street, police say.

Ramos, a native of El Salvador whom prosecutors say is a member of a violent street gang, was found guilty of two felonies as a juvenile – a gang-related assault on a Muni passenger and the attempted robbery of a pregnant woman – according to authorities familiar with his background.

In neither instance did officials with the city's Juvenile Probation Department alert federal immigration authorities, because it was the city agency's policy not to consider immigration status when deciding how to deal with an offender.

Even there, a recent poll showed 79% of city respondents stated that San Francisco should "turn over convicted illegal immigrants for deportation." That seems like a lot of people, but it still makes you wonder who the people are that aren't in the 79%. Well, actually I probably know.

San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom has not contacted the widow. How could he. I would like to think that after this terrible event, that San Francisco would maybe rethink their whole sanctuary policy. I am not going to wait around for that. San Francisco is a city that welcomes illegal aliens (sorry, "undocumented citizens") but wants no military presence anywhere of any kind. In this case, the city did the "humane thing" for Ramos by not reporting him so he would not be deported. Unfortunately, the Bologna family was not treated so humanely by Ramos. The city had two opportunities to deport Ramos. They did not. The sanctuary city policy worked in that regard. Probably not as intended, though. ICE, the government enforcement agency that terrorizes people according to Barack Obama, missed a chance here as well. And as long as there is more compassion by many for illegals than for the victims, these types of stories will be repeated.

Brit Hume also said tonight that one of the justifications San Francisco has used as a sanctuary city is because the illegals in the city would be afraid to report crimes out of fear of being deported. I don't doubt that is true, though I have no evidence to back that up. I am sure that it doesn't make it right. SF Mayor Newsom also recently spent $83,000 in a "public awareness campaign" to tell illegal immigrants that the city was on their side. That's nice.

If you can watch it, here is a video of Mrs. Bologna from earlier today.

Gavin Newsom wants to be California's next governor.

Sunday the New York Times ran an article titled "Inside a 9/11 Mastermind's Interrogation."

The article appeared innocent enough. Of course, it was not. The NYT determined that they were going to go ahead, despite official pleas not to, and reveal the name of the man who questioned and got information from among others, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. The article even says this person did not torture him. Nice reward for doing your job. I will not link to the piece on principle. If you haven't read it yet you should be able to find it even if you have only limited internet searching skills.

Official NYT explanation: The Central Intelligence Agency asked The New York Times not to publish the name of [not using name here], an interrogator who questioned Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and other high-level Al Qaeda prisoners, saying that to identify [not using name here] would invade his privacy and put him at risk of retaliation from terrorists or harassment from critics of the agency.

After discussion with agency officials and a lawyer for [not using name here], the newspaper declined the request, noting that [not using name here] had never worked under cover and that others involved in the campaign against Al Qaeda have been named in news stories and books. The editors judged that the name was necessary for the credibility and completeness of the article. The Times’ policy is to withhold the name of a news subject only very rarely, most often in the case of victims of sexual assault or intelligence officers operating under cover.

Side note: Why didn’t the NYT follow these rules when they ran that smear article on Sen. McCain alleging that he was "close" to a lobbyist? What? There is an election soon? Oh.

Coincidentally, some of those who provided information for the story were not named. The [jerks] who gave information without any approval get protected by the paper and the guy who does his job gets screwed over.

Some Democrats will be quick to point out that people like me defended the Bush Administration in the Joe Wilson / Valerie Plame / Robert Novak / Scooter Libby / Richard Armitage / Peter Fitzgerald witch hunt. Fair. We've argued about that in circles on my other site many a time. Assuming they were right (for arguments sake only), then this obviously must upset those same people and outrage them. This seems about 65x worse to me. You wanted Bush and Cheney to go to Guantanamo over that? How about the author of this article Scott Shane and his bosses at the Times? Just to do it, the NYT published sensitive information that they really didn't need to. An alias would have worked fine. But no. Then for an extra poke in the eye, they told you just where this person works now and in what capacity. Pretty shocking when you think about it. Really.

It is a shame, because it ruined an otherwise pretty informative and interesting article that talked about different interrogation types and specific details on overseas raids from past years and how ill prepared US intelligence was post 1990s to deal with emerging threats. The piece still would have credibility even without using the name in question. There just wasn't a need to do so.

The New York Times, looking out for America's best interest. No wonder their subscription rate and stock are plummeting. It makes you wonder if they even care about profit or if they just are willing to lose money to push an agenda and destroy lives. It is getting hard to argue against the latter. Just ask [not using name here].

Story: Two influential US senators got "VIP" loans from a leading subprime mortgage lender that saved them tens of thousands of dollars, it was reported last night. The Democratic pols, Chris Dodd of Connecticut and Kent Conrad of North Dakota, both received the highly favorable loans under the designation "Friend of Angelo," a reference to embattled Countrywide head Angelo Mozilo, Condé Nast Portfolio reported.

Obviously Dodd (Chairman of the Banking Committee) and Conrad (Chairman of the Budget Committee) were unaware they got special treatment of any kind. Who actually believes that line? You did not hear much about this because the two senators involved are Democrats. Dodd saved about $70,000 with his two loans; Conrad saved about $10,700 on his. That seems like a conflict of interest from the most ethical Congress ever! This will never turn into anything big because of their party affiliation and the media. Also, no one except political nerds like me know who Kent Conrad is. These two wealthy Democrats got cheaper interest rates than you or I could have, but they "didn't seek them." Very noble, but they had no problem taking them even though the conflict of interest could not be more clear. Conrad and Dodd saw no wrong doing with getting financial breaks due to their positions, or at least they didn't until common people found out. Additionally, Conrad, who fancies himself as a budget wizard, got his loan for his Delaware vacation home that he may have some disclosure problems with (oh my god oh my god the article said Conrad's wife is a lobbyist, does Barack know this?). If Dodd ever got above 2% in any poll when he ran for president, this could have sunk him. No worries there as he was stuck down in Kucinich territory.

The lesson learned: If you ever want to become to refinance your house at a low, special rate or even become a slumlord, just work your way up to become chairman of a powerful United States Senate committee. And make sure you are a Democrat. I do not advise any Senate Republicans to do this. So Richard Shelby or Judd Gregg, if you are planning to get a home loan, do not take favors. You will not get a free media pass. They will use it to try and sink you.

If the very unfortunate happens (it won't) and Conrad and Dodd have to resign their seats, they could always take Jim Johnson's slot on the Obama VP vetting committee (this is actually how this all came to light). And if they actually did have to leave the Senate, Republican Governors Jodi Rell (Connecticut) and John Hoeven (North Dakota) could appoint their replacements and Republicans could enjoy a few months in the majority before they lose more seats in 2008 and work their way down to around 42-44 seats after holding 55 of the 100 seats on January 3, 2005. But that is another story in of itself which I will talk about this week, updating this previous Senate 2008 post.

Story: Eric Holder, recently appointed by Barack Obama to his vice presidential search committee, played a leading role in one of the most infamous events of a presidency filled with infamy: the pardon of billionaire fugitive Marc Rich.

If you don't recall, Rich was one of many pardoned by former President Bill Clinton literally on his way out of office. Rich was the one that got the most attention due to the absurdity of the fact that it was even considered in the first place (look what donations to the Clinton Library can do). Holder was Deputy Attorney General at the time and the key figure in helping Rich obtain his pardon. In 2002, a congressional committee reported that Holder was a "willing participant in the plan to keep the Justice Department from knowing about and opposing" the Rich pardon. Obviously the Rich pardon process was kept close to the vest of Clinton Administration officials. Real smart to bring the Marc Rich pardon back to life. What was Obama thinking appointing this guy? He is already getting hammered for some of his associates. Bad move.

Some "change." No doubt Marc Rich pardon enabler Eric Holder would be under consideration for the AG slot in a potential Obama Administration.

Asked for a comment the Obama campaign replied, "These are just distractions." Or at least they probably did.

I said before I wouldn't do a rundown of Obama's potential selections, due to his supporters claiming whoever it is the best choice regardless. Upon thinking about it more though, he should pick Bill Richardson. He is really the only person out there I see that brings a state. Obama/Richardson brings the 5 Electoral Votes in New Mexico. You can say "well 5 EVs wont matter;" tell that to Al Gore. If your VP wins a state, then it was a good selection. I don't think Strickland brings him Ohio. I don't think any of the Virginia Three would help push him over the top there (Warner, Kaine, Webb). Sebelius won't help him carry Kansas. No one else out there but Richardson locks up a state. I know that Team Obama doesn't care about my advice, but in this case they should. So I hope they don't take it.

"I believe this community deserves a new brand of leadership. I am ready to bring integrity and strong representation back to this district,” commented Moran.

“It would be unfortunate if the Republican Party decided to play politics with this open seat,” Moran said. “I would hope that they would follow the lead that Governor Strickland set today and appoint a nonpolitical person to hold the office in the interim until the voters choose a representative in November.”

Well said.

My personal favorite is the time he swore at reporters in Youngstown when he was questioned about his daughter working for the Secretary of State's office. There are no wrong answers here and there are many options to choose from. It appears the Sunshine Express is about to make it's final, somber voyage. The famous SUV should go on Ebay or something, all proceeds going to the State of Ohio of course. It can be earmarked for Jennifer Brunner to travel to collect awards for making Ohio's voting system "more secure."

You can also use this thread to speculate on who Ted Strickland will appoint as the replacement. I also will use this space to say that I felt the Democrats were scheming to keep Dann around for awhile to avoid a special election. I was wrong. They did the right thing. That Ted Strickland is VP material!

Updates: On the left, Pho and Writes Like She Talks liveblogged the press conference. On the right, Nix Guy and WMD hear that Mike DeWine is gearing up to run for the AG slot. Last week, Right Runner speculated it would be Cordray against Portman.

First things first. This headline is from The Boring Made Dull, but I just had to use it. Kudos for thinking of this, TBMD.

We have let other blogs beat up on this story, but I felt I should probably weigh in with everything that has gone on, especially today. The story just won't go away. Impeachment articles were filed against Dann this morning. The articles outline nine counts of why Dann should be impeached, according to those who filed them – the Democrats. The Democrats' resolution to impeach their own needs Republican support from both the Ohio House and Ohio Senate.

Something posted at the Darke Blog caught my attention. The Democrats do not want a special election. That is clear. They want to drag this out – and it will fade out of the news – until September 24, at which time Dann can resign and have his replacement not run until 2010 ( no special election). I think it is entirely possible, and maybe probable, that the Democrats actually want nothing to be done so they can blame the Republican legislature for the inaction. That is how politics is played – and the Democrats are going to try and spin this back around on Republicans who really have nothing do with this. Of course, the resolutions can't go anywhere without Republican support.

And as Darke Blog put it: And in either event, impeachment may take until after September 24, in which case Democrats will have their cake and eat it too. Indeed. There will be an investigation. It will take months, not days. There is no set timetable (thanks Ohio House Republicans) for the Inspector General to complete his investigation which still cannot begin until this legislation passes. Hence, things don't get started for awhile, the deadline passes for a special election and Democrats are happy. Strickland gets to appoint whomever he wants and he/she won't have to face the voters for the office.

Or maybe both sides just want this guy the hell out of the AG Office. Democrats were the ones to bring up the impeachment articles, so now Republicans have to decide what to do. I think they should vote for impeachment and then deal with the appointment and subsequent special election if it happens. Nix Guy thinks Republicans should proceed with the vote as well.

One last note: The bill allocates $250,000 to cover costs of the investigation. That could be used for a lot of paint jobs for the Sunshine Express.

UPDATE:The Plain Dealer is reporting that Dann will resign later today.

UPDATE 2: Dennis Willard of the Akron Beacon Journal reports that Dann will not resign today.

Today's Dispatch has a piece titled "AG's office ignored early warning." Stout lived across the street from the Dann condo and said she was offered a job by Dann the first time she met him. " 'Get her a job doing something in the attorney general's office, anywhere she fits,' " she said Dann told Gutierrez. After less than two months at work, Stout was transferred abruptly on Jan. 18, without explanation, to an information-technology position that she readily admitted she was never interested in nor qualified for. Sounds similar to the criticism you hear from the left about some Bush appointees (appropriate criticism though).

A telling quote in Sunday's PD from Ted Celeste, on whether or not Dann should resign: "It is important to do some testing and see what they (voters) are feeling," he said. Typical Democrat thinking here. Do some polling and see if you can hang on. Clarification: this is typical elected Democrat thinking, not rank and file Democrat thinking. More often than not, scandal infected Democrats tend to hang on to their jobs while Republicans depart the scene. In this case, I think the polling results are clear – Ohio Democrats waited forever to get back into power and they don't want one person messing it up. And again, not just because of the recent stuff, but all that has happened since Dann took office has just accumulated to the point where people want "Barack Obama style change" at the AG Office.

Looking ahead to 2010, as long as Dann goes away soon, I wouldn't think this incident would still be terribly relevant, though Republicans will certainly try to keep it in the forefront. I kind of want to feel bad for Dann, but I don't because he still seems to be whining that people are coming after him. Marc Dann ran some of the most dishonest campaign commercials in Ohio history against Betty Montgomery in 2006. He knows how politics is played, and if he is so stupid that he couldn't figure out that people would be coming for him, then he really is ill equipped to be Attorney General, as he has admitted.

Dann's need to keep his prestigious job above anything and everybody else is the very reason why he is the type of individual who could easily be corrupted. Ohio wanted to sweep out Republicans in 2006 and they didn't care at the time who they got in return. Maybe they should have taken a closer look. Like I have often said, my friend who worked for Petro told me in October 2006 what a disaster Dann would be. He said he didn't care about any other statewide races except keeping Dann out. He was right. The way I understand it, if Dann resigns before September 24, Ted appoints a successor who will have to run in a special election this November. If Dann can hang on until then, then resign, his successor gets to finish his full term. Two bad choices for Democrats, but the latter is far worse.

UPDATE: State Democrats want Dann out.

Eric Mansfield did a write up of the saga and this was in there: He (Dann) also says he never expected to win the election and that he's been turning around his behavior and that of others in his office for the last few months.

Huh? He never expected to win the election so he didn't know how to act? That doesn't even make sense.

Hard to see how Dann survives all this. If it was this alone, he could probably ride out the storm. But there are just too many other incidents. Dann will be a weight around the ankles of the other Democrats if he runs again. I was reminded today of the Bill Sloat piece about potential AG replacements. It seems a lot more relevant today. Matt Naugle had it before the turn of the year and was mocked. Looks like he is owed an apology by many.

I can't wait to see what the Professor says later today. He has been all over this from day 1. Writes Like She Talks liveblogged the Dann press conference.

Update: I found this over at Plunderbund. Eric says he was lied to personally by Jessica Utovich.

I see that Ted Strickland is going to be in Indiana with Hillary. When he gets back, I suspect Dann will be getting a phone call.