Blogs are abuzz in reaction to the news that Newt Gingrich has decided against seeking the Republican presidential nomination. The Associated Press reports:

"Newt is not running," spokesman Rick Tyler said. "It is legally impermissible for him to continue on as chairman of American Solutions (for Winning the Future) and to explore a campaign for president."

Gingrich decided "to continue on raising the challenges America faces and finding solutions to those challenges" as the group's chairman, Tyler said, "rather than pursuing the presidency."

At Townhall.com, Matt Lewis says:

I feel so jilted. What a tease ...

At Captain's Quarters, Ed Morrisey headlines his Saturday item "I Hate To Say I Told You So, But ....," linking back to his Friday prediction that Gingrich would not run.

-- Robert Stacy McCain, assistant national editor, The Washington Times

This is unusual: First lady Laura Bush commenting on policy. This statement from Mrs. Bush's office, on Burma, just went out this evening:

The deplorable acts of violence being perpetrated against Buddhist monks and peaceful Burmese demonstrators shame the military regime. Tens of thousands of Burmese are turning to the streets to demand their freedom -- and the country's military dictatorship has countered with horrifying abuses. Non-violent demonstrations by Buddhist monks and nuns have been met with tear gas, smoke grenades, baton beatings, and automatic weapons. The regime admits to killing 10 people, but unofficial reports suggest the number is much higher. Getting reliable information in and out of Burma is a challenge as cell phones have been seized and telephone lines slashed. Burmese bloggers and citizen journalists are being silenced. The U.N. has dispatched its special envoy on Burma, Ibrahim Gambari. He must be allowed to meet with demonstrating monks and Burma's democratically elected leader, Aung San Suu Kyi. President Bush calls on all nations, especially those nations closest to Burma that have the most influence with the regime, to support the aspirations of the Burmese people, and to join in condemning the junta's use of violence on its own people. Seeing Burma through a peaceful democratic transition is in all nations' best interest. The United States stands with the people of Burma. We support their demands for basic human rights: freedom of speech, worship, and assembly. We cannot -- and will not -- turn our attention from courageous people who stand up for democracy and justice.

-- Jon Ward, White House correspondent, The Washington Times

First lady Laura Bush, a former librarian, really likes books. This is an excerpt from her interview with Fox News this morning about tomorrow's National Book Festival on the national Mall downtown, an event Mrs. Bush started in 2001:

Q: What would you say, Mrs. Bush, is your favorite book of all time?

MRS. BUSH: Well, there are so many great books, that's really hard to ask a librarian — that's like asking which child is your favorite.

— Jon Ward, White House correspondent, The Washington Times

National Taxpayers Union President John Berthoud, praised as "the happy warrior of fiscal conservatism," died Thursday. He was 47 45.

Mr. Berthoud, who had headed NTU since 1997, was found in his Arlington home Thursday morning by two NTU employees after he failed to show up for work, a spokesman for the organization said. He appeared to have died of natural causes, said Pete Sepp, vice president for communications at NTU.

"He shaped our entire culture and mission at NTU," Mr. Sepp said, reporting that NTU had received "hundreds of e-mails and telephone calls not only from the Washington area but from around the country" sending condolences on Mr. Berthoud's passing.

Mr. Berthoud was a "great guy" who "stood up for taxpayers in a town that views taxpayers as chumps," said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform.

Mr. Berthoud served on the board of directors of the American Conservative Union. "I am in shock and unable to gather any thoughts other than John was a wonderful friend and conservative colleague," said ACU Executive Vice President J. William Lauderback. "His absence from the conservative movement will be profoundly felt."

John Berlau, director of the Center for Entrepreneurship at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, noted that Mr. Berthoud worked closely with grassroots activists.

"John was the happy warrior of fiscal conservatism," said Mr. Berlau, who was a reporter for Insight magazine when he first met Mr. Berthoud. "He always made sure to take the message of low taxes and limited government beyond the Beltway. ... He made networking with state policy groups a priority and influenced others to follow in his footsteps in this area. John will be sorely missed, but his positive influence will be long felt."

Mr. Berthoud is survived by his mother and two brothers. Plans for a memorial service will be announced later, Mr. Sepp said.

Will update later with more details. Meanwhile, Mr. Berthoud's friends are memorializing him on his Facebook page.

-- Robert Stacy McCain, assistant national editor, The Washington Times

UPDATE 2:30 a.m. Friday:

Blog tributes to Mr. Berthoud accumulated as news of his death spread among free-market activists. By midnight, there were 22 responses to Elizabeth Terrell's blog post at NTU's Government Bytes blog.

Mr. Berthoud's obituary is on Page A9 of Friday's final edition of The Washington Times. (The photo is by Doug DeMark, courtesy of the Capital Research Center, and shows DonorsTrust executive director Whitney Ball and NTU development director Sara Salupo talking to Mr. Berthoud.)

FreedomWorks, the Tax Foundation, and Free Republic were among the organizations noting Mr. Berthoud's passing.

Amy Ridenour of the National Center for Public Policy Research said:

I don't want to post anything else on the blog this evening until I note with sadness the death of John Berthoud. ...

He was always willing to lend a hand; often, he was one of the very first to volunteer to assist coalition efforts. His name came up in office conversations often. I do not recall hearing a negative word about him; not even once.

If you asked around DC long enough, you'd learn that "leading a significant conservative organization" does not necessarily equal, "folks I'd love to have a drink with" - but John Berthoud would prove the exception to that rule.

"He was a fun guy," said Mr. Kirby, mentioning that he had spoken to Mr. Berthoud at Wednesday's premiere of "The Call of the Entrepreneur."

"He was talking about his party Saturday -- 'Are you going to be there?' " Mr. Kirby said. More than 100 guests had already RSVP'd for the party Mr. Berthoud was planning to host Saturday at his home in Arlington. "The party runs from 7:00 until you leave," the invitation had said. Some of his friends were talking of a memorial party Saturday in his honor.

Meanwhile, at Mr. Berthoud's Facebook page, the tributes poured in from across the country. Drew Johnson wrote:

Thank you for giving me a chance to do what I love. Without you, there would be no Tennessee Center for Policy Research.

I'm shocked and saddened. John's family and friends and the NTU folks are in my prayers. May he rest in peace.

I'm stunned. Life is short. John was an amazing man. He will be missed. God Bless him, his family and NTU.

-- RSM

Police arrested 49 persons outside the State Department today on charges of refusing to disperse after a protest of President Bush's two-day global warming conference.

The protesters, members of Greenpeace and other environmental groups, arrived outside the State Department building in Foggy Bottom well before the 9 a.m. opening meeting.

As delegates from 17 countries poured into the building, the protesters shouted chants, such as "No more hot air; renewable sources now" and "Clean coal does not exist."

Federal Protective Service officers gave the protesters multiple warnings to leave and began to arrest those who refused their order after two hours, according to the Associated Press.

Greenpeace Executive Director John Passacantando told the AP that "the world is being held back from solving global warming by President Bush," because the U.S. will not agree to mandatory caps on carbon emissions.

The Bush administration says it wants to take a multifaceted approach that emphasizes new technologies and voluntary emission reduction targets, and says that mandatory caps will cripple business industries.

Mr. John Passacantando called the U.S. meetings "a fraud."

— Jon Ward, White House correspondent, The Washington Times

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice this morning called for a "revolution in energy technology" to meet the challenge of global warming during the opening of a two-day conference here in Washington.

Speaking in the State Department's Loy Henderson Conference Room to an audience of a few hundred, which included delegations from 17 countries, Miss Rice reassured world leaders that “the United States takes climate change very seriously."

"We are both a major economy and a major emitter. Climate change is a global problem and we are contributing to it, therefore, we are prepared to expand our leadership to address the challenge," Miss Rice said.

The U.S. conference has been called the "major emitters conference" because it includes the countries with the largest economies and biggest carbon dioxide emissions.

President Bush organized the conference, which he will address tomorrow, to shape the debate over how to address global warming. The Bush administration wants to push the global community toward a broad spectrum of solutions that are business-friendly and, they say, more effective than a simple carbon emissions cap.

Miss Rice said that global warming is a "complex matter" that "cannot be dealt with effectively as an environmental challenge alone," but requires an "integrated response."

"If we stay on our present path, we face an unacceptable choice: Either we sacrifice global economic growth to secure the health of our planet or we sacrifice the health of our planet to continue with fossil-fueled growth. This is a choice that we must refuse to make," Miss Rice said.

"Instead, we must cut the Gordian knot of fossil fuels, carbon emissions, and economic activity. This current system is no longer sustainable, and we must transcend it entirely through a revolution in energy technology," she said.

Yvo de Boer, the U.N.'s top climate change negotiator, spoke after Miss Rice and, without directly rebutting Miss Rice's points, sounded a different tone.

"We have been shown that the economic costs of delayed and pragmatic action will by far exceed the economic costs of taking early, strong and assertive action," Mr. de Boer said.

Mr. de Boer's comment reflects the general European attitude, which has been adopted by many in the Democratic Party in the U.S., that the threat of global warming is imminent and requires steps such as mandatory caps in emissions.

The Bush administration is less certain of the scope of the global warming threat, and believes caps or other such goals should be set by each country for themselves.

"Though united by common goals and collective responsibilities, all nations should tackle climate change in the ways that they deem best," Miss Rice said.

Critics have questioned whether this U.S. conference is a distraction from the U.N. process, which next picks up at a December meeting in Bali, Indonesia.

The goal is an agreement by the end of 2009 on a global approach to curbing emissions after the Kyoto protocol expires at the end of 2012.

-- Jon Ward, White House correspondent, The Washington Times

Today's front-page story by Jim McElhatton on the connections between Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign and the Soros-backed group Americans Coming Together (ACT) -- recently hit with a near-record FEC fine for its campaign law violations -- inspired at least one blogger to call the New York Democrat "Hillary Rodham-Soros." (That sobriquet appears to have been originally applied to Mrs. Clinton in a Huffington Post humor column by Danielle Crittenden.)

Meanwhile, Curt at Flopping Aces reminds us that he blogged about this in July -- before ACT was fined $775,00 by the FEC -- drawing on revelations in the book "The Shadow Party" by David Horowitz and Richard Poe.

Both bloggers and the MSM have shown a certain "dog-bites-man" attitude toward news of the Soros-Clinton connection. As Jammie Wearing Fool mockingly headlines his post, "Shocker: Mrs. Clinton Tied to Shady Soros Group."

Like her husband -- whose multiple scandals inspired Sen. Bob Dole to complain "Where's the outrage?" -- Mrs. Clinton seems to be invulnerable to scandal, simply because a new Clinton scandal is more or less expected from time to time.

Fugitive fundraiser funnels cash to the Clinton campaign and then takes it on the lam? Yawn. Clinton-connected, billionaire-backed group cops a plea for violating federal campaign finance laws? Ho hum.

Even the connection between Mrs. Clinton, Soros and MoveOn.org's "General Betray Us" ad doesn't produce any serious outrage, except from Republicans like Mike Huckabee:

"If you can't get your lips off the backside of George Soros long enough to use those lips to say it's wrong to declare a sitting general . . . guilty of treason," the 2008 Republican presidential hopeful said, "how would you ever expect to have the support of the very military you might have to send into deadly battle?"

What this story demonstrates is that there is little to no consequence for Democrats who violate the campaign laws. Whether it is vote fraud or or illegal campaigning they just MoveOn to another organization and keep on campaigning. The defunct organization pays a fine, but the perps just move to another entity.

-- Robert Stacy McCain, assistant national editor, The Washington Times

UPDATE 4:30 p.m.:

Bryan Preston at Hot Air links Jim McElhatton's story and observes:

Hillary cannot plausibly claim to not know that ACT was both connected to Soros and that it was the third most heavily fined election law violator in US history. And she hired much of its top tier to help run her campaign.

President Bush issued a statement on Burma this afternoon:

"The world is watching the people of Burma take to the streets to demand their freedom, and the American people stand in solidarity with these brave individuals. We feel admiration and compassion for the monks and peaceful protesters calling for democracy. Every civilized nation has a responsibility to stand up for people suffering under a brutal military regime like the one that has ruled Burma for too long. I call on all nations that have influence with the regime to join us in supporting the aspirations of the Burmese people and to tell the Burmese Junta to cease using force on its own people, who are peacefully expressing their desire for change. By its own account, the Junta has already killed at least nine non-violent demonstrators, and many others have been injured and arrested as they seek to express their views peacefully. I urge the Burmese soldiers and police not to use force on their fellow citizens. I call on those who embrace the values of human rights and freedom to support the legitimate demands of the Burmese people."

-- Jon Ward, White House correspondent, The Washington Times

President Bush is trying to forestall the new Japanese prime minister from withdrawing his country's support operations for U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

The White House told reporters in an e-mail that Mr. Bush spoke with Japanese Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda yesterday morning -- the first conversation between the two since Mr. Fukuda's selection by the Japanese legislature, called the Diet, on Tuesday.

"President Bush called Yasuo Fukuda to congratulate him on his election as prime minister. President Bush told the prime minister that he values the friendship and relationship the United States and Japan have," said White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe.

Mr. Bush also urged the new Japanese leader to continue his country's refueling of U.S. ships in the Indian Ocean, in support of the war against al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

"The president thanked the prime minister for Japan's significant contribution to the global war on terror and noted that he hoped the refueling operations for Afghanistan will be renewed by the Diet," Mr. Johndroe said.

Japan's current commitment ends Nov. 1, and Mr. Fukuda is under political pressure to cease the operations.

Mr. Bush also mentioned Japan in his speech to the United Nations on Tuesday, in what may have been an attempt to curry some favor with Mr. Fukuda.

In his U.N. speech, Mr. Bush advocated for adding Japan to the Security Council, one of the U.N.'s most powerful committees, which currently has five permanent members -- China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States -- and 10 temporary members.

"We believe that Japan is well-qualified for permanent membership on the Security Council, and that other nations should be considered, as well," Mr. Bush said.

Michael Green, a former top adviser to Mr. Bush on Asian affairs who now teaches at Georgetown University, said that while the U.S. has supported Japan's addition to the Security Council, the timing of Mr. Bush's comment was probably strategic.

"There may have been some calculation that it would help those trying to win passage of legislation in Tokyo to extend Japan's counterterror efforts," Mr. Green said.

-- Jon Ward, White House correspondent, The Washington Times

In less than a century, America will no longer be a majority-white nation, David Coleman, professor of Demography at Oxford University, explained Tuesday at a Hudson Institute forum.

A decline in U.S. fertility rates, in combination with increased immigration, will change the ethnic makeup of America, Mr. Coleman said.

This transition is affecting many other countries, Mr. Coleman said. Throughout Western Europe, populations are being inundated by new immigrant populations, he said. The native-born British, Scottish and Irish populations are also becoming minorities in the United Kingdom.

In the early 1990s, the United States was the first country to identify an ethnic transformation; however, this transformation has not received much attention. Statistical data presented at the Hudson forum suggested that most non-Hispanic whites will become racially intermixed with other ethnicities by 2100.

"How non-Hispanic whites will respond to becoming the minorities is a very interesting question," said Mr. Coleman. "As far as I can judge from 3,000 miles away, there are very small scale — state and neighborhood level — changes that seem to create uneasy hostilities."

Panelists identified immigration as the only controllable factor affecting the speed at which the ethnic transformation takes place.

American Enterprise Institute scholar Nicholas Eberstadt said "the United States, for all its flaws, has a pretty workable formula."

Mr. Eberstadt said that historically, immigrants in America, over time, are able to assimilate into society and become productive citizens, inferring that the same assimilation process would take place over the next century as immigrants, and their offspring, became the ethnic majority in America.

In an interview with The Washington Times, Mr. Coleman said the key issue in dealing with this demographic transition is, "Is race of national importance, or does this transition not really matter?"

— Rob Gutierrez, WashingtonTimes.com

Jack Goldsmith, former head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, will testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Oct. 2, the committee announced today.

Mr. Goldsmith, who advised President Bush on the extent of his executive branch war time powers, recently published a book, "The Terror Presidency: Law and Judgment Inside the Bush Administration."

In the book, Mr. Goldsmith defends the Bush administration from charges that they have made law with the intent to torture detainees and enemy combatants, and commends the administration's efforts to protect the country from terrorism.

However, Mr. Goldmsith, who resigned in part due to disagreement over OLC opinions written by his predecessor, Jay Bybee, criticizes President Bush for his disregard for Congress.

Mr. Goldsmith also criticizes David Addington, chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, and says that Mr. Cheney's then-legal counsel was one of the main proponents of unilateral use of executive branch powers inside the administration.

Mr. Goldsmith says that by seeking to expand presidential war time powers — something Mr. Goldsmith thinks needed to happen — without working with Congress, Mr. Bush has actually diminished the scope of executive branch authority.

Mr. Goldsmith is now teaching at Harvard Law School.

A former high-ranking Justice official — a Republican — told me last week that while the conclusions Mr. Goldsmith reaches in his book are probably correct, he should not have written the book, because it discloses conversations that are protected under attorney-client privileges.

— John Ward, White House correspondent, The Washington Times

The Times' Joe Curl reports today that the NRA is taking a different tack on endorsements:

The National Rifle Association, which did not endorse President Bush in 2000 and 2004 until just a month before the general election, is considering stepping into the presidential campaign fray early next year during the primary season, the group's chief lobbyist says.

While the NRA waited until October in each of the past two presidential election years before endorsing a candidate, the group plans to take a more high-profile role early in the 2008 Republican nomination process.

"Historically, we have not gotten involved in primaries. We traditionally wait until after the conventions," said Chris Cox, head lobbyist for the NRA. "That being said, given the candidates and the process and the front-loading of the primaries, it is a possibility that we could get involved in one of these presidential primaries."

Everybody, it seems, is afraid of getting leap-frogged on the calendar. With all the early endorsements, primaries and debates, I'm wondering if the saturation coverage now will mean burnout next fall.

Thoughts?

-- David Eldridge, managing editor, WashingtonTimes.com

David Horowitz can think of a lot of reasons why Columbia University shouldn't invite Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak there Monday: "Not to mention he's a Nazi. Not to mention he wants to kill all the Jews -- I take that personally."

The Ahmadinejad speech -- which roiled the blogosphere this week -- is also personal for Horowitz because he's an alumnus of Columbia. The university's Web site listing of "notable alumni" describes him as a "neo-conservative movement founder." It would be more accurate to describe Horowitz as a "red diaper baby" (his parents were Communist Party members) who was an early leader of the '60s New Left and became a conservative in the 1980s, a full decade after the neoconservative movement coalesced around the presidential campaign of Democratic Sen. Henry "Scoop" Jackson.

In a telephone interview Friday, Horowitz called Ahmadinejad "the Persian Hitler." It's not hard to see why, given this video of the Iranian president leading a crowd in chanting "Death to Israel":

(Hat tip: Michelle Malkin)

Columbia President Lee Bollinger has defended the Ahmadinejad speech as "robust debate ... on global issues." Horowitz isn't buying that argument.

"Just ask yourself," he says, rattling off a list of names that includes President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, "Do you think any of those people would be invited to Columbia by the president of the university under the pretext of a 'robust debate'?"

Despite his alumni status, Horowitz hasn't been invited to speak at his alma mater -- "certainly not by Lee Bollinger," he says -- but he remains heavily involved in the campus scene nationwide. His group Students for Academic Freedom fights political correctness on campus, and his Terrorism Awareness Project is gearing up for next month's Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week. Of Ahmadinejad's visit to Columbia, Horowitz says, "I wish he would have come during Islamofascism Awareness Week, because then we could have used him as Exhibit A."

Bill Kristol has called for Columbia students to boycott the Ahmadinejad speech, but Horowitz says, "I'm sort of against boycotts generally."

Horowitz's student contact at Columbia is Chris Kulawik, president of the Columbia Conservative Club, who told WNYC that he's planning to protest Ahmadinejad's visit:

This is academia. This is a forum. And we're going to challenge his ideas as best we can. Because we know in the end he's going to look like an idiot in the eyes of the world.

Meanwhile, Columbia students have set up a Facebook group to organize a protest Monday, and as of Saturday morning nearly 900 had joined the group, which says:

Expected attendance is in the thousands ... Remember -- the world is watching. This is a monumental opportunity to make our voices heard. Generations will ask us, What did we do to protest? Where were we?

The pro-Israel group Stand With Us will distribute signs like this one at the anti-Ahmadinejad protests:

Little Green Footballs notices that the National Press Club is having a luncheon videoconference with Ahmadinejad, prompting Allahpundit to remark:

It's the luncheon that's so precious. ... Watch him show off his just-asking-questions Holocaust dance moves, then knock back a glass of wine and some strip steak. It's dinner theater. What filth.

At the National Press Club barely a week ago, Gen. David Petraeus said that Iran is supplying "explosively formed projectiles" and rockets being used against U.S. troops:

The U.S. commander in Iraq . . . said Iranian activity in Iraq is contributing to sophisticated attacks on coalition and Iraqi forces.

"Again, there's no question where they have come from," Gen. Petraeus said. "And the evidence is very, very clear. We captured it when we captured Qais Khazali, the Lebanese Hezbollah deputy commander, and others, and it's in black and white."

Horowitz said that Columbia's invitation to Ahmadinejad "shows that people do not appreciate that we're in a war. This is the enemy. They're killing our soldiers in Iraq."

-- Robert Stacy McCain, assistant national editor, The Washington Times

Liberal writer Garance Franke-Ruta sparks a discussion of Republican Fred Thompson's sex appeal:

Last Friday at a dinner party the conversation turned to Fred Thompson, and whether or not he is actually sexy. The guests were primarily political reporters, including one who'd just come back from following Thompson on the campaign trail, where, the reporter insisted, older women seemed to really dig the 65-year-old actor and former Senator.

Perhaps because she’s not an older woman in Iowa or New Hampshire, Ms. Franke-Ruta is not impressed:

At best, Thompson is what we women refer to as tall. (I'll give him that.) . . . I think there's got to be some kind of objective standards brought into play here. "Sexy for Iowa politics" or "sexy for a 65-year-old man" just are not the same thing as "sexy."

James Joyner offers some thoughts on the subject:

It seems to me that there are two theories along these lines, one plausible and the other not. The latter is the Dan Quayle Theory: that women will vote for a man simply because he's handsome (for a politician). That's rather silly, if not downright insulting. On the other hand, women may be more inclined to vote for men that make them feel safe. That is, they're looking to vote for an idealized version of a father figure rather than a dreamboat. The type, the "Man's man," is attractive to male voters, too, under the "Guy I'd Like to Have a Beer With" formula of presidential selection.

In this context, Thompson may indeed be, if not sexy, quite attractive. He's, as even Garance concedes, very tall. He's also got the deepest voice of any of the major contenders. And he manages to affect the "Regular Guy" persona that people seem comfortable with better than most.

The electoral appeal of the "Regular Guy" is frequently overlooked by political pundits, even if this factor arguably has determined the outcome of every presidential election of the past three decades.

Jimmy Carter was elected in 1976 largely on his "Regular Guy" appeal, but then was trumped in 1980 by Ronald Reagan, perhaps the archetypical "Regular Guy." In 1988, Democrat Michael Dukakis was woefully lacking the "Regular Guy" factor, but in 1992, Bill Clinton had lots of it. George W. Bush rode his "Regular Guy" charms to election and re-election over a couple of stuffy Democrats, Al Gore and John Kerry.

For 2008, in the "Regular Guy" battle among Democrats, I'd give Barack Obama the edge over John Edwards (although Hillary Rodham Clinton deserves credit for tryin' hard). And, yes, among Republicans, Thompson does seem to have the best "Regular Guy" factor. If you want a sexy Republican, movie-star handsome Mitt Romney is the obvious choice. (Please, no angry comments from lovestruck Ron Paul supporters.)

People who take politics seriously are prone to bemoan the superficiality that has crept into the electoral process in the television age, ever since the telegenic John F. Kennedy won his TV debate with Richard Nixon in 1960. It probably can't be helped, although one can't help but feel pity for candidates who think they're waging a battle of ideas, only to discover they're just Bachelor No. 2 on "The Dating Game."

-- Robert Stacy McCain, assistant national editor, The Washington Times

What do they have in common? Just when you think they've hit rock bottom, they surprise you. We'll leave Britney to the mercy of Ace of Spades, but MoveOn.org deserves a little more attention.

Even after their "General Betray Us" ad was condemned by a landslide Senate vote -- with fewer than half the Democrats siding with MoveOn.org -- the liberal group refuses to ... well, move on.

Behold MoveOn.org's response:

The U.S. Senate just told you to sit down and be quiet when they passed a Republican amendment condemning MoveOn. ...

We're releasing a statement from MoveOn members--and anyone else who feels the same way--saying, "We will not be quiet, we will fight back. We will keep speaking out until Congress forces an exit plan for this awful war."

Some have suggested that MoveOn.org keeps pushing this issue because it's a great fund-raising device. But is the purpose of MoveOn.org merely to raise money, or to score political victories? Again, from their "fight back" response:

It's part of a larger campaign by Fox, the right-wing echo chamber, and Republicans like John McCain (who said we should be "thrown out of the country"). ....

And it has one purpose: to intimidate all of us. To send a message that anyone who speaks unpleasant truths about this war will pay. To make everyone -- especially politicians -- think twice before they accuse the administration of lying.

MoveOn.org's rhetoric implies that James Webb is taking his marching orders from Fox News, that Barbara Mikulski is part of the "right-wing echo chamber" and that Patrick Leahy wants to "intimidate" the Bush administration's critics.

If MoveOn.org's refusal to back down from their attack on Gen. Petraeus puts them at odds with anti-war Democrats -- and forces Democrats to choose between their anti-war base and moderate "swing" voters who disdain extremism -- how does that help anyone but Republicans?

MoveOn.org seems delusional, out of control and bent on self-destruction. Just like Britney.

-- Robert Stacy McCain, assistant national editor, The Washington Times

Our story today about Steven G. Bradbury, the president's nominee for the head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, referenced holds by Democrat senators on the nomination "in an attempt to force the Bush administration to turn over information on other matters."

There are two matters, in particular, which Democrats have tried to dig into.

"After the Judiciary Committee approved his nomination in November 2005, a senator placed a hold on the nomination because he wanted the administration to disclose certain classified OLC opinions that were prepared prior to Mr. Bradbury's time in the office," said Peter Carr, a Justice spokesman.

"Then in August 2006, additional senators placed holds on his nomination because of the president's decision not to grant security clearances for DOJ's Office of Professional Responsibility to conduct an investigation into legal advice previously given by OLC concerning the NSA surveillance program," Mr. Carr said.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, Vermont Democrat, is also threatening that he may not hold confirmation hearings for attorney general nominee Michael B. Mukasey unless the White House cooperates on other information requests.

However, a committee spokeswoman denied to specify yesterday which specific matters Mr. Leahy wants cooperation on.

— John Ward, White House correspondent, The Washington Times

National security reporter Audrey Hudson's coverage of the "flying imams" case and CAIR have won her fans nationwide.

Wednesday, it was Audrey's turn to be the fan when she was interviewed by one of her favorite media personalities, Dennis Miller.

No word yet on whether Dennis will be sending Audrey a "Don't Tase Me, Bro" T-shirt.

-- Robert Stacy McCain, assistant national editor, The Washington Times

Fred Thompson is catching some grief for declaring at the Iowa State Fair, "Americans have shed more blood for the liberty of others than all of the nations of the world combined."

Here's the video, courtesy of Blogs for Fred Thompson:

James Joyner does the math, and Ed Morrisey notices the absurdity of crediting Stalin's Soviet Union for the "liberation of Western Europe":

Had Hitler not launched Operation Barbarossa, Stalin wouldn't have lifted a finger for anyone's liberty, let alone those of his own people -- which he proved in the post-war Iron Curtain he imposed on Europe.

Shedding blood for the liberty of others is one of the greatest examples of what has been called "American exceptionalism." Regardless of their political persuasion, nearly all Americans take understandable pride in this fact. (My own father was wounded by German shrapnel while fighting in France during World War II.)

If it weren't for political disputes over the current war in Iraq, and if Fred Thompson weren't a presidential candidate, no one would criticize his praise of those Americans who have shed their blood for the liberty of others. Yet politics is politics, and so his words are labeled a "grandiose claim." The facts, however, are still the facts.

-- Robert Stacy McCain, assistant national editor, The Washington Times

UPDATE 10:35 p.m.: Honored by the inimitable Instalanche(TM). Thanks, professor!

President Bush met from about 2 to 3 p.m. today with a group of conservative columnists and authors in the Roosevelt Room.

Here is the White House list of those in attendance:

Tony Blankley, The Washington Times
Lawrence Kudlow, CNBC
Kate O'Beirne, National Review
Michael Barone, U.S. News and World Report
William Kristol, The Weekly Standard
David Brooks, The New York Times
Mort Kondracke, Roll Call
Charles Krauthammer, syndicated
Kathryn Lopez, National Review
Kim Strassel, The Wall Street Journal
Ron Kessler, author

-- Jon Ward, White House correspondent, The Washington Times

During a meeting with reporters this afternoon, House Republican Whip Roy Blunt and House Republican Conference Chair Adam Putnam were asked if either party stood to benefit from a potential government shutdown if Congress and the White House can't reach agreement on this year's appropriations bills.

"It's like breakdancing around nitroglycerin," Putnam said to laughter in the room. "You never know who it's going to blow up on."

There have been 17 government shutdowns over the past 30 years, most lasting only a day or two.

Of course, the 1995 government shutdown that led to Bill Clinton's reinvigorated poll numbers before the 1996 presidential election is still fresh on the minds of many Republicans who thought that fight would work to their benefit at the time.

Yesterday, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer told reporters that Democrats "Have no intention of shutting down the government."

-- Eric Pfeiffer, Capitol Hill correspondent, The Washington Times

In May 2006, Rep. John P. Murtha, Pennsylvania Democrat, said U.S. Marines "killed innocent civilians in cold blood" in Haditha, Iraq. Since then, military prosecutors have dropped charges against several of the Marines originally accused in the incident.

Now, via Hot Air TV, Jason Mattera of the Young America's Foundation asks Mr. Murtha if he will apologize to the exonerated Marines:

To find out more about the accused troops, visit Defend Our Marines.

-- Robert Stacy McCain, assistant national editor, The Washington Times

The debate over permanently updating the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) renews today on Capitol Hill, with hearings before the House Intelligence and Judiciary committees.

Congress approved a temporary, six-month update just before its August recess, but Democrats were hammered by the American Civil Liberties Union and other liberal and civil liberties groups over the August break.

White House officials have told me that they expect a tougher fight in Congress to permanently update the law. So today, as the Hill takes on the "Protect America Act," the White House has sent out a list of what it calls the top seven "myths" about FISA modernization:

1. It eliminates civil liberty protections.
2. It gives the federal government new powers to target people in the United States for warrantless surveillance.
3. It allows the government to target Americans in the United States under the guise of surveilling a person located overseas -- a practice known as "reverse targeting."
4. Not updating FISA will not hinder the government's ability to collect intelligence.
5. It authorizes the executive branch to conduct physical searches of domestic mail, computers or the homes of Americans without a warrant.
6. It would allow the government to obtain, without a warrant or any court approval, the business records of Americans in the United States.
7. It allows the intelligence community to intercept communications without any oversight.

You can go to the White House Web site to read the full rebuttals to these "myths." Here is the gist of their argument:

Current law requires U.S. intelligence to go through the FISA court for any surveillance involving targets whose communications go through the U.S. For instance, if two suspects communicate by e-mail or cell phone outside the U.S., but their messages or signals go through a router or tower in the U.S., that case has to go before a FISA judge.

The Bush administration says this is far too cumbersome and is costing them valuable intelligence. They argue that FISA is meant to protect U.S. citizens from inappropriate or unlawful surveillance, but that parts of the law written before e-mail and cell phones were invented need to be updated to factor in new technology.

There are a couple key details. First, U.S. surveillance may not monitor communications between two persons who are both in the U.S., but if a target outside the U.S. is talking to someone in the U.S. about "terrorism or foreign intelligence," then the feds would have a green light under the proposed law.

The White House also says that the proposed law would not authorize any physical searches of mail, computers and homes, or the obtaining of medical or library records, without a warrant.

Lastly, under the Protect America Act, "the attorney general is required to submit for review to the FISA court the procedures by which the federal government determines that the authorized acquisitions of foreign intelligence do not constitute electronic surveillance requiring court approval under FISA."

-- Jon Ward, White House correspondent, The Washington Times

Last week, I did a Q&A with blogger Flip Pidot, who has now updated his database on the Hsu scandal, and calculates the total as $2,438,510 in Hsu-connected contributions to 84 Democratic candidates and PACs, 22 Democratic committees and state parties, and one Republican candidate.

-- Robert Stacy McCain, assistant national editor, The Washington Times

Most of the discussion about President Bush's nominee for attorney general is focused on a simple question: Will Democrats confirm him?

But there is also an interesting subplot involving conservative reaction to Michael B. Mukasey, a federal judge in New York for 18 years who is, by the White House's own admission, a virtual unknown in Washington.

The White House put together a concentrated effort to prevent another Harriet Miers moment. Their strategy consisted of talking directly to a handful of influential conservatives, who then have gone out and assured the rest of their brethren that Mr. Mukasey is an on the money pick.

But there is still some anxiety at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., as they wait for conservatives to get up to speed on Mr. Mukasey's record and as they hope to avoid any unexpected backlashes. The president needs his base behind him for upcoming battles on Iraq and the budget.

So far the reaction by conservatives appears to be mostly positive, with some concerns over a 1994 ruling by Mr. Mukasey against a Chinese man seeking asylum in the U.S. for him and his family, based on the argument that China's one-child policy amounted to political persecution.

The White House argues that Mr. Mukasey's ruling in that case is in fact evidence that he is a strict constructionist of the law, and not a liberal interpreter of statute.

A few conservatives, specifically at National Review's "The Corner," raised concerns about the ruling because Mr. Mukasey did not take an anti-abortion stance.

But others have argued that Mr. Mukasey ignored any personal feelings on the issue and interpreted the law as it was written, as judges should.

There are also some worries about Sen. Chuck Schumer's high marks for Mr. Mukasey. Conservatives don't trust the New York senator on anything, so his endorsement of the president's pick has stirred some indigestion.

But many prominent conservatives today are saying, on blogs or in interviews with the Times, that they are supporting Mr. Mukasey "based on general information from good conservatives who speak well of him."

News of Mukasey's nomination leaked out via an online article by conservative commentator William Kristol, Saturday night on the Weekly Standard's Web site. Mr. Kristol praised Mr. Mukasey as an easily confirmable pick who was strong on terrorism law.

Mr. Kristol sought to disarm the concerns about Mr. Schumer, recommended him to Mr. Bush for the Supreme Court in 2003.

On Sunday, the White House invited six influential conservatives (they're not saying who) to meet with Mr. Mukasey. Four of the conservatives met individually with Mr. Mukasey, and the two others met together with the judge.

"It was my impression that the judge handled himself very well and there was a satisfaction level in each instance," said a senior White House official with knowledge of the meetings.

The next day or two will make it clear whether Mr. Mukasey will breeze through the conservative vetting process or spark another Miers moment. So far, though, it's looking like awfully clear sailing.

-- Jon Ward, White House correspondent, The Washington Times

How boring is life in Washington? I just got a press release for "The Funniest Celebrity in Washington" contest. Among the contestants is ... Sen. Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania Republican?

"So, a guy carrying a duck walks into a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing ... "

-- Robert Stacy McCain, assistant national editor, The Washington Times

The American Civil Liberties Union today came to the defense of Sen. Larry Craig, who says he might resign at the end of the month over his guilty plea to a disorderly conduct charge resulting from a police sex-sting operation in a men's room at a Minnesota airport.

"The real motive behind secret sting operations like the one that resulted in Senator Craig's arrest is not to stop people from inappropriate activity. It is to make as many arrests as possible — arrests that sometimes unconstitutionally trap innocent people," said Anthony Romero, executive director of the ACLU.

"If the police really want to stop people from having sex in public bathrooms, they should put up a sign banning sex in the restroom and send in a uniformed officer to patrol periodically. That works," he said.

The ACLU submitted a friend-of-the-court brief to a Minnesota District Court urging that Mr. Craig be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea, a move the senator hopes will enable him to cancel his resignation plans.

The ACLU said its brief argues that the government can arrest people for soliciting public sex only if it can show beyond doubt that the sex was to occur in public.

"Solicitation for private sex, regardless if it occurs in a bar or a restroom, is protected speech under the First Amendment," according to the group.

"When free speech rights come into play, police enforcement actions must be 'carefully crafted' so that they don't unnecessarily ensnare people who are engaging in constitutionally protected speech," the ACLU said. "The secret sting operation used by the police to arrest Senator Craig was not 'carefully crafted' to avoid ensnaring innocent speech."

Mr. Romero said that Mr. Craig has not always been a "great friend of civil liberties," but that doesn't negate his rights.

"Government should make public restrooms safe for all, but it should do so in a manner that is really designed to stop inappropriate behavior, rather than destroying the lives of people who might have no intention of doing anything illegal," he said.

A copy of the ACLU's brief is available here.

-- S.A. Miller, Capitol Hill correspondent, The Washington Times

White House press secretary Dana Perino confirmed this morning that former federal judge Michael B. Mukasey is the president's nominee for attorney general.

"He has tremendous experience in national security law," Mrs. Perino said. "He is well suited to lead the Justice Department. He has a keen apprecation of the threats facing our nation."

Mrs. Perino said Mr. Mukasey first interviewed for the job on Sept. 1 and was offered the job on Friday.

The White House wants him confirmed before Congress leaves for their recess, which starts Oct. 8.

"I think that he can be confirmed quickly. That is important," Mrs. Perino said.

President Bush will introduce Mr. Mukasey in the Rose Garden within the hour.

-- Jon Ward, White House correspondent, The Washington Times

The National Republican Senatorial Committee aims to make Democrats pay for their fealty to MoveOn.org:

Hat tip: Hot Air, where AllahPundit notes that Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson giving the New York Times grief for giving MoveOn.org a discount.

The ad references a boast by MoveOn.org's Eli Parisier, who said of the Democratic Party in 2004:

We bought it. We own it. And we're going to take it back.

I like it. It's the first glimmer of respect for property rights we've seen from the Dems in a long time.

Moveon.org ... has spent more than $2 million against nearly a dozen Republicans since last year, according to Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings. ...

MoveOn.org ranked third in the country among political action committees in total receipts from January 2005 to June 30, 2006, with $14.1 million. The group trailed only the pro-Democrat Emily's List, which took in $20 million, and the Service Employees International Union, which reported $14.4 million.

-- Robert Stacy McCain, assistant national editor, The Washington Times

It's just come to our attention that the presidency is for sale. That's right -- the presidency of the United States of America.

No, it's not the work of some faceless mega-corporation or media-backed, global conspiracy.

It's the work of an apparent entrepreneur who's placed a posting on eBay. The starting bid is $20 million.

The "seller" -- who goes by the name "Willard Romney" (a new eBay trader, by the way) -- seems to have taken Republican candidate Mitt Romney's challenge to heart.

Any takers?

Hat tip to Jake Benson.

-- Carleton Bryant, assistant managing editor, The Washington Times

Most political and administration flaks inside the Beltway will offer a simple and unimaginative "let me check on that and get back to you" when buying more time to answer a reporter's question.

But this from a Federal Air Marshal Service spokesflak has to be The Best Ever Evasion to a Reporter's Question:

"I'm just outside of Roswell, New Mexico, and may lose my phone signal ... " he said.

Just before the cell phone went dead.

-- Audrey Hudson, Homeland Security reporter, The Washington Times

Fresh from their "betray us" attack on Gen. David Petraeus, MoveOn.org is now looking to add new employees. The online liberal group sent an e-mail to its members yesterday:

MoveOn's starting a fellowship program -- four short-term paid positions. ...

For the first time, we're hiring MoveOn fellows: five-month paid positions working alongside our top campaigners and organizers on the most important issues of our times.

Whether you're a recent college grad or a movement veteran looking for a change, we're looking for a few great folks who are passionate, innovative, and ready to move progressive politics.

Through the MoveOn Fellowship, we're recruiting the next generation of online organizers and grassroots leaders for accelerated careers in the progressive movement.
* Learn the tricks of the trade and be mentored by leaders in the field.
* Work alongside MoveOn directors for 5 months in a paid position with a competitive salary and health care benefits.
* Help develop, plan, and execute big campaigns on key issues like stopping the Iraq war, fighting the climate crisis, bringing health care coverage to everyone, and winning the presidency back.

We expect Fellows to come in many varieties. The idealistic young graduate. The inspired stay-at-home mom. The battle-tested community organizer. The MoveOn Fellowship will invite these rising stars to join our team, mentor them in our cutting-edge strategies, and position them on the frontlines of the biggest battles in American politics.

-- Robert Stacy McCain, assistant national editor, The Washington Times

UPDATE 6:40 p.m.: Just listed as a feature link at Memeorandum. (You should click the link.)

UPDATE 8:30 p.m.: Don Surber warns potential MoveOn.org applicants:

Looking for work? Well, Uncle Wes Boyd wants you. ... But beware: This group backs intern abuse.

David Freddoso of National Review also notices the MoveOn.org fellowship competition:

I notice that Donna Brazille is one of the judges for the fellowship -- I wonder how she feels about this group's smear of Petraeus?

White House press secretary Tony Snow this morning said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was "flat wrong" yesterday in her description of Gen. David Petraeus' recommendations for the way forward in Iraq.

Mrs. Pelosi, after emerging from a White House meeting with President Bush, his Cabinet, and other congressional leaders, said Gen. Petraeus had advised "a 10-year or more commitment for a long-term occupation of Iraq."

"I don't think anybody's arguing that that's going to be the case," Mr. Snow said.

Mr. Snow said that, despite Democratic calls for a full withdrawal of troops from Iraq, "you have seen a shift in mission."

Mr. Bush sent a "surge" of 30,000 additional troops from January to July, and Gen. Petraeus said Mr. Bush could reduce U.S. forces to pre-surge levels by next summer without endangering progress made in the last seven months.

Mr. Bush will say in a nationally televised address tomorrow night that he plans to accept the general's recommendations, though White House officials have said the troop cut will be a few thousand less than 30,000.

The administration and Gen. Petraeus envision a significant U.S. troop presence in Iraq for several more years, though the strategy is to transition American forces from a leadership role in Iraq to an "overwatch" position, where they back up Iraqi forces.

Mr. Snow said that Gen. Petraeus' testimony described a "success story" and predicted that Democrats would continue to fail in their efforts to force the president into a full withdrawal.

"I think you're going to find that there are going to be a lot of people in both houses [of Congress] who are going to be supportive of trying to continue a successful way forward," Mr. Snow said.

-- Jon Ward, White House correspondent, The Washington Times