I have another take on Rudy's speech taking on the 'orthodoxies' of the Republican party.

In our society, at least in most of it, the word 'orthodoxy' comes with at least a loose negative connotation. We're open-minded, tolerant people. So to call one of a political party's bedrock issues an 'orthodoxy', as the Times does here, is at least to slightly prejudice the question.

As Steve notes, Giuliani's choice of Houston is meant to echo John Kennedy's speech addressing the issue of his Catholicism to southern Baptists.

But why do Republicans need to give up these 'orthodoxies'? By and large I agree with Rudy on abortion, gay rights and gun control. But a lot of people get into politics precisely to take the opposing positions. Why shouldn't they organize their voting around these issues that mean so much to them?

It reminds me of the predictable as the seasons articles you'll read every few years in the Post and other papers asking whether Democrats are going to give up their hidebound orthodoxies of supporting Social Security or the progressive income tax or civil rights. For many of us those are precisely the reasons we're involved in politics, so why should we give them up because some frivolous oped writer who doesn't know the first thing about public policy thinks it's the hip new thing to do?

How many Democrats would support a flat-tax, pro-privatization, anti-gay rights candidate for president? And why should they? Washington's beautiful people, the froth at the top of the politico-cultural mug, look down on everybody, right and left, who's really committed politically. It's a mild embarrassment, like loud clothes or poor table manners.

The obvious comparison to Rudy Giuliani's speech at Houston Baptist College is JFK's 1960 speech to Greater Houston Ministerial Association, at which the then-senator articulated his support for the separation of church and state. There is, however, a key difference.

Rudolph W. Giuliani directly challenged Republican orthodoxy on Friday, asserting that his support for abortion rights, gun control and gay rights should not disqualify him from winning the party's presidential nomination.

He said that Republicans needed to be tolerant of dissenting views on those issues if they wanted to retain the White House.

In a forceful summation of the substantive and political case for his candidacy, delivered to a conservative audience at Houston Baptist College, Mr. Giuliani, the former mayor of New York, acknowledged that his views on social issues were out of line with those of many Republican primary voters. But he argued that there were even greater matters at stake in the election, starting with which party would better protect the nation from terrorism.

The comparison to the JFK speech is intentional and has been picked up by the media. But the connection doesn't hold up -- JFK effectively told the Greater Houston Ministerial Association, "We're together on the issues, but you need to get over my Catholicism." Giuliani effectively told the Houston Baptist College, "We're not together on the issues, but I'm strong on national security. 9/11, 9/11, 9/11."

To be sure, admitting that he's a full-blown, regular ol' pro-choice Republican is definitely the right call for Giuliani. After donating repeatedly to Planned Parenthood, opposing the GOP's proposed ban on so-called "partial-birth" abortions, backing public funding of abortions, and accepting an award from NARAL, Giuliani's drive to "moderate" his position was transparently ridiculous. He could have followed Romney and gone for the wholesale flip-flop, but Giuliani knew no one would buy it. He's left with only one option -- grudgingly admitting reality, which he did yesterday.

But Giuliani's argument quickly falls apart anyway -- not just because the GOP base isn't willing to back a pro-choice candidate, but also because Giuliani doesn't actually know anything about national security and foreign policy.

Just in the past few weeks, Giuliani has shown that he doesn't know the difference between Iran's and North Korea's nuclear programs, and has no idea whether Iran and al Qaeda are Sunni or Shia. Asked recently for his thoughts on the efficacy of the president's escalation strategy in Iraq, Giuliani said, "I don't know the answer to that."

As National Review's Rich Lowry recently noted, when Giuliani responds to voters' questions, "his answers on foreign policy and military affairs aren't deeply informed."

So Giuliani is left with an awkward pitch: vote for the guy who disagrees with the party's base on all the key issues and overlook the fact that he doesn't know much of anything about his signature issue.

How he plans to pull this off, I have no idea. By comparison, JFK had it easy.

When it comes to the "voter fraud" cases that Karl Rove and the Bush White House care about, practically all of them are trumped up nonsense -- little more than veiled attempts to disenfranchise suspected Democrats.

This is not to say that voter fraud doesn't occur; it's just not the kind of crime that Rove is looking for.

The CBS News Investigative Unit has learned a man who was a field coordinator in Congressman Patrick McHenry's (R-NC) 2004 campaign has been indicted for voter fraud in North Carolina.

The indictment charges that Michael Aaron Lay, 26, illegally cast his ballot in two 2004 Congressional primary run-offs in which McHenry was a candidate. The charges indicate that Lay voted in a district where it was not legal for him to vote.

At the time Lay was listed as a resident in a home owned by 32-year-old McHenry but campaign records indicate Lay's paychecks were sent to an address in Tennessee. McHenry won the primary by only 86 votes. According to Gaston County, North Carolina District Attorney Locke Bell, Lay was indicted on Monday, May 7 by a local grand jury.

CBS News has learned that these charges were first investigated by the North Carolina State Board of Elections up to two years ago. The results were forwarded to the previous Gaston County District Attorney Mike Lands. In January, Bell was elected the new district attorney for the county and pursued the indictment.

Of course, this isn't the kind of case that would be of interest to the Justice Department. McHenry is a loyal Bushie.

Words of wisdom from part of the 28% of Americans who believe the president is doing a great job.

Gov. Sonny Perdue just finished up his talk-radio session with former U.S. secretary of education Bill Bennett on WGKA (920AM), held at the state Capitol.

On his "Morning in America" show, Bennett mentioned that Perdue has been talked about as vice-presidential fodder in '08, and asked if the governor agreed with other Republicans who think it might be time to put some air between themselves and President Bush -- specifically on the topic of Iraq.

Perdue said he did not. In fact, in Spiro Agnew-like fashion, the governor encouraged nattering nabobs of negatism to put a lid on the loose talk.

Perdue acknowledged that the going in Iraq has been tough. But, he said, "until you've got a better idea, keep your mouth shut."

"This president did not choose war. He chose to protect the United States of America, and I'm thankful that he did," Perdue said.

Who can argue with logic like that? Never mind that period of time -- I think it was called 2002 and 2003 -- when the president chose to go war. Sonny Purdue, like other Bush friends who create their own reality, remembers things differently, and approves of how everything turned out.

As a rule, presidential campaigns with a lot of turnover aren't firing on all cylinders.

Jim Martin, who for months had served as Sen. John McCain's New Hampshire state director, has left the campaign "effective immediately," according to an email sent to campaign staffers from Rob Jesmer, McCain's National Political Director, [Friday] afternoon.

Asked why Martin was departing, McCain communications director Brian Jones said that, "in order for the campaign to be successful in the state we thought it was necessary to move in a different direction."

This comes less than a week after Michael P. Dennehy, McCain's national political director, stepped down from his job, saying he wants to spend more time with his family. For that matter, in late April, McCain replaced his longtime finance director and one of his liaisons to the religious right movement.

I can only imagine what the campaign's internal polls are saying right now.

There's more on this and other campaign-related stories in the Election Central Saturday Roundup.

When it comes to the GOP's culture of corruption, even the loyal GOP base has a breaking point.

When Rep. John Doolittle (R-Calif.) was forced to give up his seat on the powerful House Appropriations Committee due to an acute case of Abramoff-itis, the GOP leadership had a chance to set things right by replacing him with a respected lawmaker of unimpeachable integrity. Instead the leadership tapped Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.), who was himself recently named one of Congress' most corrupt lawmakers.

Calvert, of course, is the subject on an ongoing FBI probe of his own. As CREW's Melanie Sloan asked, "Why would the minority choose to replace one member under federal investigation with another member also under federal investigation?"

Some conservatives are starting to ask the same question. RedState, one of the leading far-right blogs, ran an item yesterday under the headline, "An Open Declaration of War Against The House Republican Leadership." RedState recounts Calvert's many alleged misdeeds, concluding that the "House Republican Leadership just does not get it." A variety of conservative blogs endorsed the challenge.

Blogs on the right aren't the only ones concerned.

The House Republican Conference Thursday ratified Calvert as its choice to replace Rep. John Doolittle (R-Calif.) on Appropriations, even though the lawmaker faced stiff opposition from conference members concerned that ethics allegations against him could hurt the party.

RedState's Erick Erickson added, "Leadership may be pleased with themselves, but I've heard from more than two dozen Republicans on the Hill thanking me for speaking out against Calvert's appointment.... That tells me Leadership is not in line with those it represents."

After all the scandals and corruption-related difficulties the GOP leadership has experienced the past few years, you'd think they'd eventually learn a few lessons. Especially after having lost both chambers of Congress, top Republican lawmakers should use this opportunity to clean up their self-created mess and start demonstrating to voters that they care about ethics and integrity in government.

That, of course, would take maturity and some common sense. The Republican leadership apparently has neither.

If a Republican presidential candidate snubs some working-class farmers, and the media doesn't report it, does it really make a sound?

When Greg Sargent first noted on Thursday that Rudy Giuliani's campaign cancelled an event at Deb and Jerry VonSprecken's family farm because they're not millionaires, he asked in his first paragraph, "[W]ill the haircut-obsessed political media cover it?"

I've been wondering the same thing. The blogs have been all over this story, and I've heard that John McCain's campaign has been sending information out to its email lists, but how's the coverage been in the traditional media?

Based on searches on Lexis-Nexis and Google News, it seems the political establishment doesn't care. I found one article -- in the Des Moines Register, which presumably appreciated the local angle.

That's it. The story hasn't been mentioned in any of the major dailies, the wires, or on any national TV broadcasts.

C'mon, assignment editors, this is an easy one. It obviously isn't nearly as fascinating as a Democrat getting an expensive haircut, but couldn't CNN send a camera crew to the VonSpreckens' farm?

Ana Marie Cox noted yesterday that Giuliani "could've probably gotten away with tap-dancing his way through the abortion issue, but I somehow don't think any campaign -- R or D -- could weather this." It's actually pretty easy when the media blows it off.

When a lawmaker is accused of corruption, and he or she is prepared to pronounce their innocence, they should generally avoid huge caveats. It appears Rep. Paul Gillmor (R-Ohio) hasn't quite learned the tricks of the trade.

As Al Kamen reported, Gillmor has a luxurious new home, alongside a golf course designed by Arnold Palmer, in suburban Columbus, Ohio. It's not Gillmor's official residence, however, because it's not in his congressional district.

Curiously, Gillmor pays the mortgage and taxes on the $1 million house, but the home isn't in the congressman's name, which appears nowhere on the property records. This gets a little tricky, but the house is apparently owned by trading company, Zenith Holding & Trading Corp, which has contributed to Gillmor's campaigns.

That's when it gets amusing.

Gillmor's office initially declined to confirm the address, saying Capitol Police suggested for security that lawmakers not give out such information, the paper reported.

But Gillmor acknowledged that he retained Zenith to buy the property on his behalf.

"There's nothing unethical or unusual," he told the paper. "It's all pretty much aboveboard." He said the deal was transparent because the Blade was able to trace it back to him, the paper said.

First, just because a newspaper reporter was able to eventually connect the dots doesn't make the deal "transparent."

Second, "pretty much" aboveboard?

And then there were 10?

A former West Virginia federal prosecutor said Friday the White House fired him in 2005 in the middle of a corruption and vote-buying investigation but never told him why.

Karl K. "Kasey" Warner said he has "concerns" and sees parallels between himself and eight other ousted U.S. attorneys. Congress and an internal Justice Department agency are investigating whether those firings were politically motivated.

Warner told the AP that he refused to resign when the Justice Department asked him to, adding, "Next thing I know, I get a letter from the president's counsel, Harriet Miers, saying I'd been fired, no reason given."

The details on this one are still a little murky, and the AP notes a 2003 controversy in which Warner offered via email to skirt campaign finance law (an offer on which he did not follow through).

So, what was Warner working on in 2005 when he was sacked? According to the AP, he won't comment on whether he was pressured by higher-ups and would not say who was being investigated when he was fired.

We do, however, have a fired U.S. Attorney who was investigating some kind of corruption who sees a parallel between his case and the other purged prosecutors. Developing....

Update: One tidbit the AP article neglected to mention is that James Comey seems to believe Warner deserved to be fired.

More from the Times on Monica Goodling's work making sure no one with 'liberal leanings' got jobs at the Department of Justice.

Schlozman to Senate Judiciary Committee: I can't make the hearing next week. I'm on vacation. Let's try again in June.

BREAKING: New charges brought against Cunningham case bigwigs Brent Wilkes and Kyle "Dusty" Foggo.

The saga continues!

You heard Greg Sargent's story about the Iowa farm couple, Jerry and Deb VonSprecken, that Rudy Giuliani snubbed because they ended up not being as rich as his campaign thought.

Now there's more. Today John McCain personally put in a call to the Deb VonSprecken to "apologize on behalf of all politicians" for Rudy's atrocious behavior.

There's more and Greg's got the latest.

Romney Campaign Doc: Mitt's Smokin' and the babes dig'im ...

Also, he's pro-life and way into God.

Possible new Romney slogans.

"MITT! He sure is purrty."

More on CBS News' firing of retired General John Batiste.

We've unearthed yet another CBS News Consultant who's openly and repeatedly advocated in favor of Bush's war policies -- and against those of Congress.

Once a congressional corruption probe gets to the boffo cruise ship pics with women pulling their tops off phase you know the indictments can't be far behind. See the gory details.

Max Sawicky is not the biggest fan of the Netroots.

Democrats push bill that would force U.S. attorneys to actually live where they are serving as U.S. attorneys.

This would reverse another one of those law changes snuck into the Patriot Act reauthorization bill last year.

Breaking: Mitt Romney neither panders nor flip-flops on an issue important to the religious right.