- John McCain

- John Warner

- Lindsey Graham

- Lincoln Chafee

- Susan Collins

- Olympia Snowe

- Mike DeWine

According to Ed Morrissey, those are the Seven Republicans that agreed to this pathetic deal.

A deal has been reached.  14 Senators in all will attempt to undermine the Senate majority.

Any Republican or Southern Democrat who reached this compromise should be targeted for opposition when they come up for reelection.  I am sick and tired of these flavor-of-the-month politicians that constantly place their own career ambitions for what's right.
UPDATE:  The Associated Press is reporting that in exchange for promising not to end judicial filibusters, the Democrats promised not to support any filibuster unless for an "extraordinary circumstance".  The AP also states "there is no guarantee" to allow the up and down" votes.  That's a crock of bull.

However, Reid said on CSpan 2 that Henry Saad will still be filibustered. 

Frist is speaking on the floor of the Senate.  The Republicans have been railroaded.  Only Owen, Pryor, and Brown get votes for sure, Myers and Saad are guaranteed to be filibustered.  The others are still "up in the air".  I wouldn't hold my breath on those.

I WANT TO KNOW WHO THE 14 SENATORS ARE!  Let's see em.

Michelle Malkin:  "With this pathetic cave-in, the Republicans have sealed their fate as a Majority in Name Only."

That's what their new name should be:  The MINO's.

The Senate is planning an all-nighter.  The Democrats will have to hold the floor all night long.

The blogosphere is setting up for it as well.  I'm usually up at that time of the night, so I'll tune into the webcast online and may post if anything happens.  The Kossacks are getting their troops in order.  Michelle Malkin has commented on it, but she hasn't stated whether she'll tune in or not.  She's usually a night owl like me, though.

I'll probably take a nap in a little while, so I'll have enough juice to see this out.

I was willing to give Newsweek the benefit of the doubt over their botched story last week.  Although they should have confirmed the story with multiple sources, I wasn't willing to blame them for the deaths due to riots last week, and by most accounts Michael Isikoff is a pretty straightforward journalist that doesn't show extreme bias in his articles.

However, this is over the line:



According to the Japanese blogger Riding Sun, the headline (writing in white) reads "The Day America Died".  And as you can see, the American flag has been stuck in a trash can.  This cover appeared in the Japanese edition of Newsweek on February 2.

Now I'm not one to get salty at someone because they disrespect the American flag, because when it comes down to it, it's a piece of cloth.  Patriotism and love of country and region comes from the heart, something that people can't burn or abuse. 

But the International and American covers of Newsweek were different than the Japanese one.  I won't post those because the photos are on his server (or, well, Blogger's) server and I'm sure enough bandwidth has been used from people hotlinking them to last a lifetime.  

But here's the International version.  It's a photo of Bush with the headline "America Leads, But Is Anyone Following?"  Both the International and Japanese versions have the lead story by Andrew Moravcsik; the International version was titled, "Dream On, America" and it was titled in the Japanese version, "America, the dream country, is rotting away."

But the American version was totally different.  Not only did they not have the anti-American sentiments of the other versions, but they didn't publish Moravcsik's article either.  The cover featured Oscar winners Jamie Foxx, Hilary Swank, and Leonardo Di Caprio.  And note: Moravcsik is a professor at Princeton University.  Why would Newsweek choose to publish an American writer in their International and Japanese versions, yet not in the American one?

Newsweek didn't because they KNEW they would catch heat in this country for that edition, especially if they would have placed the Japanese cover with the flag in the garbage can.  So they only left that and the article in the International and Japanese versions.  It's one thing to actually pull a stunt like this, but it's totally another to do it where you will get less heat from the ones you know will criticize you the most. 

Newsweek's stunt was cowardly, and if it wasn't for a blogger who noticed it, they would have gotten away with it.

(Photo:  Yahoo's The Contender Page)

Last week we saw a rematch of the ages, as an extra two rounds were enough to make Peter the first entrant into the finals at Caesar's Palace.  This week, Jesse Brinkley takes on Sergio Mora to find out who will join Peter.

The show before the fight was nothing that important; rehashing Peter/Alfonso II, hyping up this fight, stressing how much was on the line, thus there isn't any specific reason to go into details.

In the first round, Sergio showed a very unorthodox style.  He isn't afraid to lunge with that jab.  They kept a steady pace, which turned out to hurt Jesse more because it gave Sergio more time to strike.  He really does move like a snake.  Jesse should have pushed the envelope here in order to get inside, because he won't win if he allows Sergio stay at a distance.  Sergio wins the round.

Tommy yelled at Jesse to go to work, and that's precisely what he did in the second round.  Jesee was a little more attentive to Sergio's movements, and once Sergio lunged forward, Jesse took advantage by getting in some good body shots, and his patented uppercuts.  Remember; he knocked out Anthony Bosante with a couple of those a few weeks ago.  Jesse did a good job tying up Sergio long enough to get in some good combinations.  Round goes to Jesse.

For some reason, Jesse didn't continue with what he was doing.  Once again, he tried to match punches with Sergio and let him dictate the fight.  Sergio stood there for a second, and at the right opportunity he lunged in with a short uppercut that stunned Jesse with a great right cross.  Sergio would follow up on that with a good combination, and before you know it, Jesse has lost the round. 

In Round 4, Jesse starts off doing the same thing, and this time Sergio throws a great right hand that hurts him.  Sergio follows that up with a barrage of punches.  Jesse gets his marbles back and gets inside and throws a couple of body shots and an uppercut, but I don't think it was enough to win the round.  Another round for Sergio.

Now Jesse starts to realize he must make this a brawl, and starts going after Sergio.  Sergio's accuracy is so sharp though, and Sergio is getting the better of the exchange.  However Jesse gets in a good jab and follows it up with a combination that sends Sergio to the ropes.  Jesse showed his power here, and it'll make Sergio think twice about mixing it up again.  I got this as a 10-10 round; it could have went either way.

Just as I stated, Sergio keeps his distance from Jesse.  He told Jeremy, his corner, that Jesse punches very hard.  He goes out in round six and works his magic, getting some good jabs in and striking from a distance.  Jesse once again does not try to force his way into Sergio, and a decent flurry at the end of this round locks it up for Sergio.  Jesse's going to need a knockout.  He's needed a knockout before in a fight, and we know what happened then.

The difference between a winner and a loser is how you finish the fight.  A winner knows when he's winning the fight and acts accordingly.  Anthony Bosante didn't fight like he was winning and was knocked silly.  Sergio however fought a smart last round, stayed away from all of Jesse's power shots and dodged around the ring, just taking a punch when needed. 

So Jesse won the round, but it was obvious to everyone in the arena that Sergio won this one on points.  And he did through a unaminous decision.  The fact is, Sergio won by fighting his kind of fight.  Jesse never fought his, and never tried to.  Sergio was able to stand back, take his time and think about what he was going to do, and was able to outbox Jesse with his speed.  Sergio knew as the fight progressed what he could and couldn't do.  Jesse never adjusted, and fought the same way in the first round that he did in the seventh.

At Caesar's, Sergio's going to have problems with Peter.  Peter's not known for his strength, but he's going to push the envelope every round, and Sergio's conditioning will come in play.  Sergio won't have time to step back and flick the jab or lunge in with an uppercut or cross because Peter will already be on him.  Sergio does have a little power behind his punches, so he's going to have to sting Peter in order to limit his advances.

---

The Contender $1,000,000 finals bout is TUESDAY NIGHT on NBC.  I question the logic of having this two hour special at the same time as the American Idol finals, but I guess since The Contender has not been renewed for next season NBC doesn't really care about the number of this final and figures no one will watch it.  That's a shame because despite the low numbers I have enjoyed these fights.

And remember, it's two fights, as Jesse faces Alfonso for the "bronze".  That should be a decent fight.

I will LIVEBLOG the Final. Come back to my site while you're watching the fight, or feel free to check out what I think about the show afterwards.  It should be a good night and some good fights.  Also, we finally get to see unedited fights.  Thank goodness.

And what a shot it was.

David Okrent has been their public editor since the Jayson Blair scandal, and in his last column for the Times, he decided to address some of the columnists and the editors:

Op-Ed columnist Paul Krugman has the disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers in a fashion that pleases his acolytes but leaves him open to substantive assaults. Maureen Dowd was still writing that Alberto R. Gonzales "called the Geneva Conventions 'quaint' " nearly two months after a correction in the news pages noted that Gonzales had specifically applied the term to Geneva provisions about commissary privileges, athletic uniforms and scientific instruments. Before his retirement in January, William Safire vexed me with his chronic assertion of clear links between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, based on evidence only he seemed to possess.

No one deserves the personal vituperation that regularly comes Dowd's way, and some of Krugman's enemies are every bit as ideological (and consequently unfair) as he is. But that doesn't mean that their boss, publisher Arthur O. Sulzberger Jr., shouldn't hold his columnists to higher standards.

I didn't give Krugman, Dowd or Safire the chance to respond before writing the last two paragraphs. I decided to impersonate an opinion columnist.

Daaaaamn.  I bet that hurt.  But for the Times to be such a top notch paper, their columnists are lame and often make weak arguments.

What a way to go out, huh?

Dean's appearance this morning wasn't as bad as the previous one a couple of years ago, mainly because that was the standard bearer for terrible appearances.  This morning, Dean didn't seem as confused, but he did lie his butt off and gave non-answers at every possible moment.  It should be interesting to see how the RNC breaks down every single statement Howard Dean made in that interview.

The most telling moment was when Howard Dean criticized Republicans for their rhetoric at the same time Tim Russert was railing off some of the ridiculous comments that Dean had made in the past few months.  The mere fact that Dean was willing to criticize someone else for being harsh comments in the face of a virtual mugshot of Tom DeLay complete with serial numbers at the bottom of the photo appears on the DNC website is laughable. 

The fact that Dean would prejudge Tom DeLay as a criminal, yet wouldn't do the same for a terrorist responsible for the worst foreign attack on American soil shows the primary reason why the American people don't trust Democrats with leadership, particularly in regards to foreign policy.  I'm sure a number of people winced when they saw that part of the show.

Howard Dean showed precisely why he isn't fit to lead a political party.  It isn't because his comments are offensive, it's because they insult the intelligence of the electorate at every turn and are often absurd.  I'll provide a more thorough analysis once NBC posts a transcript, but I'm sure a number of people agree with this view.

Ed Morrissey liveblogged the show, and offers his insight here.

I'm sure everyone has heard about the London Sun's surprising photos that have now been broadcast around the world.

Of course, the media is trying to paint this as an Arab outrage, but why should they care if a murdering despot is shown in his draws?  The man is probably responsible for more deaths than anyone in the Middle East, yet they're salty because he was "exposed"?

Here's the spin the media's trying to take on this issue:

There were fears that the publication Friday and Saturday of pictures showing the imprisoned Saddam, including one where he is clad only in his underwear, could further fuel anti-American sentiment.

The new pictures in Britain's The Sun included one of Saddam seen through barbed wire wearing a white Arab robe, and another of Ali Hassan al-Majid, better known as "Chemical Ali" for his alleged role in gassing Kurds, in a bathrobe and holding a towel.

Give me a break.  It was a British tabloid that published the pictures, not an American media organization.  President Bush rightfully condemned the photos - not because Saddam was embarrassed, but it was a security leak.  An investigation should be underway and the one who leaked those photos to the Sun should be punished.

Meanwhile, there are people trying to ironic and ridiculous claim that Saddam is a victim, by stating the conditions in the prison are poor.  I'm sure they are tons better than the jails his victims were kept in.  Hussein deserves far worse treatment than whatever he's subject to in those jails.

With writeups like this from the AP's Will Lester, it's no wonder there has been mounting criticism over the polls several media organizations have been conducting:

About four in five Americans want the Senate to thoroughly examine the president's nominees to be federal judges — an attitude shared by a majority of Democrats, Republicans and independents questioned in a new poll.

The rest say those nominees should get the benefit of the doubt and get approved by the Senate without much scrutiny, according to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll released Friday.

Why would the Associated Press lead off with a question like this in their article, much less even ask it in a poll?  It would be obvious to most that nobody wants to confirm judicial nominees without making sure their background and legal career is thoroughly researched.

As you read further, you'll find out why:

Senators are locked in a fierce fight over what is required to approve the more controversial federal court nominees. Republicans want them approved by a simple majority, while the Democrats want to require the 60 votes needed to override a blocking filibuster. The Democrats say a minority party needs the method to ensure checks on the majority.

Both sides point to the Senate's constitutional duty to "advise and consent" on presidential nominations. Republicans say that means great deference is given to the president, while Democrats say it means those put forward should be closely scrutinized.

Hence, according to Lester, Bush's judicial nominees are being "closely scrutinized".  Nevermind the fact that some of these nominees have been waiting over 4 years for confirmation, with Terrance Boyle first being nominated 15 years ago.  Meanwhile, the Republicans are being characterized as giving the president a rubber stamp - as Democrats like to say - on his nominees. 

Lester's article is nothing but spin.  The Democrats aren't "scrutinizing" anyone; they are obstructing a nomination with the express purpose of killing it.  The Democrats have not requested anymore information of any of these nominees nor have stated publicly that they needed more.  Lester takes it upon himself to distort what's going on in the judicial nominee battle by infering that the Republicans are simply trying to rush these nominees through the Senate without a proper look into their backgrounds.

Indeed, the true story in the AP poll is placed in the background:

Respondents favored conservative over liberal judges in general, 47 percent to 39 percent. As for a possible Supreme Court nominee, 52 percent said they felt comfortable that President Bush would pick the right kind of justice, while 46 percent said they weren't.

That's what should have led the article, as it was a new revelation, but didn't.  The fact that the poll found that more Americans favor conservative judges than leftist ones and a majority trust President Bush to make sound decisions in picking judicial nominees played second fiddle to a moot point that had no bearing in the filibuster issue.

The poll shows what I've suspected all along; people are tired of the obstruction and expect these nominees to go through; after all, it was one of the central issues the Republicans ran on in 04. If the Democrats continue to obstruct, they are only hurting themselves in 06 and 08.

Kudos goes to Maryland Governor Todd Erlich, who stemmed the rising anti-Walmart tide today by vetoing a bill that would have forced Walmart to pay higher health care premiums and contribute more to Medicaid.

This was an obvious plan to single out Walmart:

The Fair Share Health Care Act, passed by lawmakers in April, would require a company with more than 10,000 employees to spend at least 8 percent of its payroll on health care benefits or pay more into the state Medicaid fund. Currently, only Wal-Mart fits that criterion.

Eduardo Castro-Wright, chief operating officer of Wal-Mart stores USA division, said the company already spends 7 percent to 8 percent of its payroll on health benefits.

I would say that had this bill been signed, it would have been declared unconsitutional anyway, but that's not a given with today's court system. 

That doesn't mean this is over.  The Maryland Senate passed the bill with enough votes to override the veto, and the House was just short of that number.  If successful, Walmart threatens to pull out of their plans to build a distribution center in Princess Anne, Maryland.  Losing the distribution center could take over 1,000 jobs away from the town.  And as the folks in Jonquiere, Quebec found out, Walmart doesn't play games with unions or left-wing governments trying to dictate how they run their businesses.

The citizens of Princess Anne should tell the Maryland legislature to step off, and let them decide if they want to work with Walmart.