Rudy and Edwards trade blows again over terrorism.
And in the back-and-forth, Rudy’s strategy is laid bare.
Bradley Schlozman to revise his testimony? Stay tuned.
Update: Bloomberg reports that he just might.
Fun facts.
A new poll finds that the same percentage of Americans know about John Edwards’ $400 haircut that know Saddam didn’t have WMDs.
Here’s a good example of the problem. In 2001, the White House put a guy named Peter Kirsanow on the US Commission on Civil Rights. Turns out he’s a full-time ‘vote fraud’ bamboozler. Here he is at a senate hearing yesterday trying to get ‘vote fraud’ nonsense added to a bill intended to make voter intimidation a federal crime.
As you’ll note virtually every claim he makes has been discredited — most recently by the US government study the White House attempted to cover up.
Brownback vows to sting Romney in Iowa straw poll. That and other political news of the day in today’s Election Central Happy Hour Roundup.
Is the Wyoming law dictating that the late Sen. Thomas (R) be replaced by another Republican unconstitutional? Vikram Amar says so. And he makes an interesting argument. Not sure I’m persuaded. But it’s worth a look.
With Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Michael Mullen replacing Gen. Peter Pace as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Wall Street Journal noticed an interesting trend among top military officials.
Adm. Mullen, like many of his four-star colleagues on the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was skeptical of the decision to send additional U.S. troops into Iraq.
This comes on the heels of Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute’s admission that he, too, registered his opposition to the president’s surge policy.
And that came on the heels of Defense Secretary Robert Gates expressing his own opposition to the surge.
In other words, Bush will have a chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a “war czar,” and a Pentagon chief — arguably the three most important war-related posts in Washington — who are at least skeptical of the central strategy underlying the president’s Iraq policy.
Odd.
It’s not that we need additional evidence of Bradley Schlozman letting partisanship drive his “voter fraud” prosecutions in Missouri, but evidence keeps coming anyway.
A voter fraud case brought by the interim U.S. attorney in Kansas City, Mo., just five days before last year’s pivotal congressional elections was rejected by a Missouri prosecutor as being too weak and as inappropriate to pursue so close to the elections.
Mike Sanders, a Democrat who was Jackson County’s prosecutor at the time, declined to elaborate on his reasons for not taking the case, but noted that even if he had sought indictments, he would have been “incredibly reluctant” to bring charges on the eve of balloting.
“As a prosecutor, you have to be incredibly mindful of the power you have and the potential that exercising that power has to influence public opinion just five days before an election,” said Sanders, who is now the Jackson County executive.
The disclosure is likely to add fuel to allegations that U.S. Attorney Bradley Schlozman rushed for political reasons to bring the criminal charges despite a Justice Department policy discouraging pre-election prosecutions.
Ya think?