Even better to hear from another Paulite....gosh don't you hate that name?

Huckabee Declared Winner of Iowa Republican Presidential Caucuses

Thursday, January 03, 2008

Mike Huckabee was declared the winner of the Iowa Republican presidential caucuses Thursday night, less than an hour after voting began.

With 25 percent reporting, Huckabee had 35 percent, Mitt Romney had 24 percent and Fred Thompson had 14 percent. John McCain had 12 percent, according to the reporting.

The Iowa caucuses sites were reportedly more heavily populated than expected Thursday night as voters traveled to familiar places to throw their support to their choice of presidential candidate.

Campaign manager Chip Saltzman reported that Huckabee was delayed 30 minutes trying to access a caucus site in Waterloo. That's rural Iowa, Blackhawk County, about 90 minutes by car from Des Moines. Traffic into the caucus location was "at a standstill," Saltzman said.

The Romney campaign, however, said it considered Huckabee's campaign to be "a one-hit wonder," as the former Arkansas governor does not have the organization or money to launch a nationwide campaign.

Romney was gracious, however, when conceding Huckabee's victory.

"This is obviously a bit like a baseball game," he said. "First inning in, well it’s a 50-inning ballgame. I’m gonna keep on battling all the way and anticipate I get the nomination when it’s all said and done, but you know congratulations for the first round to Mike, and we’ll go on to New Hampshire."

First-tier candidates were hoping for break-out numbers to distinguish them in a hotly-contested race. The fate of a few second-tier contestants was hanging in the balance as their fortunes were being measured in the shadow of better-funded and organized opponents.

Entrance polling for FOX News also offered an uncertain picture on the Democratic side. As Democrats entered the caucuses, Barack Obama had 34 percent, compared to 27 percent for Hillary Clinton and John Edwards at 21 percent, though that number appeared to be moving up as the night continued.

But as 46 percent of the precincts were reported, Obama had 34 percent, and Edwards and Clinton were tied with 32 percent each. Bill Richardson had 2 percent.

Registration at one precinct at Iowa State Historical Museum was approaching 40 percent before the cut-off. That would be four times the amount the Democratic precinct chairman was expecting. Chairman Jack Porter of the 64th Democratic precinct in Des Moines told caucus-goers right before the 7 pm deadline for registration to participate that "everyone who wants to register can register," generating strong applause from those in the room.

Analysts say turnout at other locations has also been much higher than the previous election, which could bode well for Obama, who has fashioned himself the candidate for change and is attracting new voters.

Public schools, libraries, churches and city halls are many of the locations where Iowa decision-makers were headed to cast their vote to choose delegates to attend a series of conventions that will determine the state's representatives to the Democratic and Republican national conventions next summer.

The museum, for instance, is home for five of the 1,781 precincts -- three Democratic, including the 64th, and two Republican -- caucusing. People were required to have come through the door before 7 p.m. CST in order to participate so voting could begin promptly. That appeared impossible as the deadline rolled by.

Of the 3 million residents in Iowa, 2 million are registered voters, but only about 150,000 Democrats and 80,000 Republicans were expected to show at the caucus sites.

But top Obama advisers predict turnout in Democratic caucuses to exceed 200,000. If true, all the campaigns -- Obama, Clinton, Edwards -- say that would spell an Obama victory.

Once they arrived, the caucus-goers were to be assigned a location in each of the caucuses sites.

For Democrats, after arriving, voters checked off their names and were given a sticker with a numerical designation. The chairman of the precinct was to start his watch at 7 p.m. and give voters 30 minutes to spill into the corners of the room where each candidate has a designated spot for supporters.

After 30 minutes, the chairman was to count up the people at each of the spots to make sure there were enough to represent 15 percent of all the eligible caucus-goers in the precinct. If the candidate doesn't meet the 15 percent threshold, his or her supporters are given a second chance to regroup and pick another candidate or convince others to join them.

The horse-trading continues for another 30 minutes until only the viable candidates' supporters are standing in their spots. The chairman then uses a formula to determine how many delegates each candidate will win. The formula used is to multiply the number of members in a candidate's corner by the total number of delegates elected at the caucus and divide that by the total number of eligible caucus attendees.

(An example: If 150 people show up to a caucus that is to elect four or more delegates, a candidate must get at least 25 people in his or her corner to be viable. If a candidate has 25 caucus-goers in his corner, then following the formula, 25 x 4/150 = .67 percent, rounded up to one, the candidate wins one delegate).

The chairman then calls up the convention center to phone in his allocated delegates.

The Republicans have a much simpler process. It's a straw poll. Caucus-goers write the name they want and stick it in a box. The names are counted up and the delegates are apportioned by percentages.

The Real Positions
Kim du Toit
January 7, 2008
7:00 AM

I watched the so-called “Republican forum” last night on Fox, and let me tell you that and the end of it all, I wouldn’t vote for any of those mealy-mouthed fools. All of them spoke like they had won the nomination, and were appealing to the so-called “center”.

What bollocks.

In case any of the candidates’ campaign people ever bother to read this, allow me to give you a closing speech that will win you the Republican nomination, and probably the Presidency as well.

    My fellow Americans:

    I know that after the Iowa polls, everyone was talking about ‘change’ as though this was some kind of magic word which, at a single stroke, will cure us as a nation of all our ills.

    Well, let me outline the specific areas where I would like to see this ‘change’ , and let me tell you how I’ll make those changes happen.

    1. Low taxes. There seems to be a vague drifting of sentiment towards allowing a tax increase to happen. When I am elected President, I will push for lower, and still lower taxes for the hard-working Americans on whose backs this bloated government rests. I should point out that had any of the Founding Fathers foreseen a tax system which confiscates nearly one third of a man’s hard-earned wages, they might have given up at the start. So let me take that one step further: not only will I push for lower taxes, but I will veto each and every bill which comes my desk which contains even the slightest hint of a tax increase. That is my solemn promise to you.

    2. Health care. Everyone, Republicans included, believes that we are entitled to health care in this country. What they really mean is that everyone should be able to afford health care insurance—and we should. Perhaps if the government took less money away from people in the first place, people would be able to pay for health insurance. We all know that a nationalized health care system is doomed to fail, because that’s happening in every country which has created it. It doesn’t matter whether it’s called a National Health Service or a single-payer system, or universal health care; what it really is, is Government giving out medical treatment—and, in case anyone hasn’t been reading the news from overseas, when Government finds out that it can no longer afford to give out medical treatment to everyone who asks for it, Government then turns around and says, “You can have it, but you’ll have to wait in line” or even worse, “You can’t have it at all, because you belong to a group which we have decided is not worthy to get it.” This has happened, I repeat, in every country where socialized medicine is practiced, and it would be an act of supreme folly to imagine that it would turn out any differently in our country. And speaking of people unworthy to get free medical treatment, let me move to my next point.

    3. Illegal immigration. I will work to reduce federal funding to any state which offers free health care, or free education, to illegal immigrants and their children. I am sick of people crying about the children of illegal immigrants. Let me make myself perfectly clear about this: if a couple gets arrested for robbing a convenience store to feed their family, we do not let them off a prison sentence because their children will lose their parents. It’s a crying shame that children should have to suffer as a result of their parents’ actions, but it is ultimately their parents who caused their woes, by breaking the law. One last thing: A lot of people have talked about how it would be impossible to deport twelve million illegal immigrants. That’s a red herring, because we don’t have to deport twelve million immigrants. What we can do is deport a million a year—and we can certainly do that— while at the same time shoring up our immigration- and border controls to ensure that having been deported, these criminals find it increasingly more difficult to re-cross the border and break the law again. Once illegal immigrants realize that we are serious about expelling them from this country, their desire to try will again be reduced. This has happened in the past, and I will work to make sure that it happens again.

    4. The size of government. The federal government of this country has become too large, too powerful, and too big for its own britches. It has been able to get this way because it collects too much of our money in taxes, and because people have become accustomed to rely on the government to provide for their comfort. Well, as we look around the world today and over the past fifty or so years, the biggest lesson we can learn is that the bigger the government and the more intrusive it is on the business of its citizens, the less successful the country will be, and the more unhappy its citizens. I spoke earlier of my desire to lower our taxes; well, let me spell it out for you.  My goal will be to lower the top income tax rate to 20%—that’s right, twenty percent. There are people who will say that the government cannot survive by taking only one out of every five dollars we earn. Allow me to say two things about that. The first is that every single American knows how to balance what we want, with what we can afford. We would like to buy jewelery, but we know we can’t afford it. Do we therefore buy the diamond necklace anyway, and stop buying groceries for our children? No, we do not: we make do with less—but that’s not the way the federal government works. Perhaps it’s time for the Federal government to start making the same difficult choices that ordinary Americans are forced to make every day—in no small part because the government takes away too much of our money to begin with. The second thing I have to say is that if some government departments find themselves short of money and have to stop working because of no funding, that is one of my goals, too. Which leads me to my fifth point.

    5. Constitutional principles. When our Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, they were extremely careful to limit the power of the Federal government by saying that the government could only do a few specific activities, and no more. Somehow, those few specific activities have grown to encompass government programs that the Founders would never have imagined, in their wildest and most imprudent dreams. So I will work first to curb and then end those expensive and unsustainable programs, to the fullest power with which the Constitution grants the President. It has been said that one of the reasons that the Constitution was so well written was because the authors had the glowering presence of George Washington looking over their shoulders. Let me tell you, I feel that same presence today—and every President should feel that same presence, and govern accordingly.

    6. National security. I spoke earlier of government departments running out of money to function, and of things the Federal government may or may not do. Let me remind everyone of one thing: one of the primary functions of the federal government, not only specified but directed by the Constitution, is to provide for the security of our nation. So do not think that I will allow our Armed Forces to be denied the proper funding to function. Far from it. Our opponents talk about our overwhelming military strength in the world as though it is a bad thing. When they say that, what they are saying is that we, the American people, cannot be trusted to manage that responsibility. Allow me to differ. When a tsunami strikes Southeast Asia, the most welcome sight is not a United Nations fact-finding mission, it is a U.S. Marine Corps helicopter. When one tribe is busy slaughtering another in some forgotten part of the world, the tribesmen would prefer to see American soldiers, rather than Bob Geldof. We are not a totalitarian country; we are not Hitler or Stalin, trying to conquer the world. We are Americans, trying to ensure that this fragile flame of freedom does not flicker and go out. And let me remind everyone that our enemies, especially the Islamic terrorists and the governments which support them, are blowing as hard as they can. My promise to you is that they will never succeed, even slightly, under my watch. We are going to listen to their phone calls and read their emails as they plan to blow up our cities or kill our soldiers; we are going to interrupt their flow of funding, no matter what the source may be. And we are going to pursue them to the ends of the Earth and kill them for the murderers and tyrants that they are, just as we have pursued and punished Nazi killers, and still do to this day.

    In closing, let me say this to you all: our Founding Fathers were rightfully afraid of tyrannical governments, both those from outside our borders and those which may spring from our own population. This is why they limited the power of government, and provided for Americans to change matters when they wanted to, whether through the soap box, the mail box, the ballot box, and, in the final extreme and with extreme reluctance, the cartridge box, just as those few brave souls did at Concord and Lexington, Massachusetts.

    Well, I speak to you now as a candidate for change—the best change, the change which our Constitution demands, and a change back to our Constitution’s original intent: less government in your lives and affairs; lower taxes; the freedom to bear arms, and all the other freedoms as enumerated in our Bill of Rights, which is still the greatest social and political document ever written.

    I will work tirelessly towards that end, because if I do not, I will have betrayed the trust which our Founding Fathers and you, the American people, will have bestowed upon me.

    Thank you, and good night.

I'm calling the Man!

With 100 percent of the voting in, Romney earned 39 percent of the vote over McCain with 30 percent. Mike Huckabee had 16 percent while Ron Paul polled at 6 percent. Fred Thompson had 4 percent and Rudy Giuliani was at 3 percent.

Richardson raising money to retire debt

By BARRY MASSEY, Associated Press Writer Tue Jan 22, 7:15 PM ET

SANTA FE - Gov. Bill Richardson is gone from the Democratic presidential race, but he's still raising money: to retire a campaign debt.
ADVERTISEMENT

His campaign e-mailed supporters Tuesday with an appeal for money.

"Will you please make one final contribution to my campaign so we can officially 'zero out' that debt," said the governor's request.

Richardson has said he raised about $22 million for his campaign.

Amanda Cooper, who was Richardson's deputy campaign manager, said no debt figure would be released until the campaign filed a report with the Federal Election Commission at the end of the month. The report will disclose contributions and expenditures during the final three months of 2007, and reflect the campaign's finances through the end of the year.

Because Richardson's fundraising is for the presidency, his latest appeal does not violate a state ban on campaign fundraising during the legislative session.

State law prohibits lobbyists from giving money to the governor and gubernatorial candidates from Jan. 1 through the 20th day after adjournment of the Legislature. State law also prohibits the governor from soliciting contributions during that time.

Federal law governs fundraising for the presidency, according to state Attorney General Gary King's office.

www.familysecuritymatters.org/challenges.php?id=1386596
Cliff Kincaid

A nice-sounding bill called the “Global Poverty Act,” sponsored by Democratic presidential candidate and Senator Barack Obama, is up for a Senate vote on Thursday and could result in the imposition of a global tax on the United States. The bill, which has the support of many liberal religious groups, makes levels of U.S. foreign aid spending subservient to the dictates of the United Nations.

Senator Joe Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has not endorsed either Senator Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton in the presidential race. But on Thursday, February 14, he is trying to rush Obama’s “Global Poverty Act” (S.2433) through his committee. The legislation would commit the U.S. to spending 0.7 percent of gross national product on foreign aid, which amounts to a phenomenal 13-year total of $845 billion over and above what the U.S. already spends.

The bill, which is item number four on the committee’s business meeting agenda, passed the House by a voice vote last year because most members didn’t realize what was in it. Congressional sponsors have been careful not to calculate the amount of foreign aid spending that it would require. According to the website of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, no hearings have been held on the Obama bill in that body.

A release from the Obama Senate office about the bill declares, “In 2000, the U.S. joined more than 180 countries at the United Nations Millennium Summit and vowed to reduce global poverty by 2015. We are halfway towards this deadline, and it is time the United States makes it a priority of our foreign policy to meet this goal and help those who are struggling day to day.”

The legislation itself requires the President “to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day.”

The bill defines the term “Millennium Development Goals” as the goals set out in the United Nations Millennium Declaration, General Assembly Resolution 55/2 (2000).

The U.N. says that “The commitment to provide 0.7% of gross national product (GNP) as official development assistance was first made 35 years ago in a General Assembly resolution, but it has been reaffirmed repeatedly over the years, including at the 2002 global Financing for Development conference in Monterrey, Mexico. However, in 2004, total aid from the industrialized countries totaled just $78.6 billion—or about 0.25% of their collective GNP.”

In addition to seeking to eradicate poverty, that declaration commits nations to banning “small arms and light weapons” and ratifying a series of treaties, including the International Criminal Court Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol (global warming treaty), the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The Millennium Declaration also affirms the U.N. as “the indispensable common house of the entire human family, through which we will seek to realize our universal aspirations for peace, cooperation and development.”

Jeffrey Sachs, who runs the U.N.’s “Millennium Project,” says that the U.N. plan to force the U.S. to pay 0.7 percent of GNP in increased foreign aid spending would add $65 billion a year to what the U.S. already spends. Over a 13-year period, from 2002, when the U.N.’s Financing for Development conference was held, to the target year of 2015, when the U.S. is expected to meet the “Millennium Development Goals,” this amounts to $845 billion. And the only way to raise that kind of money, Sachs has written, is through a global tax, preferably on carbon-emitting fossil fuels.

Obama’s bill has only six co-sponsors. They are Senators Maria Cantwell, Dianne Feinstein, Richard Lugar, Richard Durbin, Chuck Hagel and Robert Menendez. But it appears that Biden and Obama see passage of this bill as a way to highlight Democratic Party priorities in the Senate.

The House version (H.R. 1302), sponsored by Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), had only 84 co-sponsors before it was suddenly brought up on the House floor last September 25 and was passed by voice vote. House Republicans were caught off-guard, unaware that the pro-U.N. measure committed the U.S. to spending hundreds of billions of dollars.

It appears the Senate version is being pushed not only by Biden and Obama, a member of the committee, but Lugar, the ranking Republican member. Lugar has worked with Obama in the past to promote more foreign aid for Russia, supposedly to stem nuclear proliferation, and has become Obama’s mentor. Like Biden, Lugar is a globalist. They have both promoted passage of the U.N.’s Law of the Sea Treaty, for example.

The so-called “Lugar-Obama initiative” was modeled after the Nunn-Lugar program, also known as the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program, which was designed to eliminate weapons of mass destruction in the former Soviet Union. But one defense analyst, Rich Kelly, noted evidence that “CTR funds have eased the Russian military’s budgetary woes, freeing resources for such initiatives as the war in Chechnya and defense modernization.” He recommended that Congress “eliminate CTR funding so that it does not finance additional, perhaps more threatening, programs in the former Soviet Union.” However, over $6 billion has already been spent on the program.

Another program modeled on Nunn-Lugar, the Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention (IPP), was recently exposed as having funded nuclear projects in Iran through Russia.

More foreign aid through passage of the Global Poverty Act was identified as one of the strategic goals of InterAction, the alliance of U.S-based international non-governmental organizations that lobbies for more foreign aid. The group is heavily financed by the U.S. Government, having received $1.4 million from taxpayers in fiscal year 2005 and $1.7 million in 2006. However, InterAction recently issued a report accusing the United States of “falling short on its commitment to rid the world of dire poverty by 2015 under the U.N. Millennium Development Goals…”

It’s not clear what President Bush would do if the bill passes the Senate. The bill itself quotes Bush as declaring that “We fight against poverty because opportunity is a fundamental right to human dignity.” Bush’s former top aide, Michael J. Gerson, writes in his new book, Heroic Conservatism, that Bush should be remembered as the President who “sponsored the largest percentage increases in foreign assistance since the Marshall Plan…”

Even these increases, however, will not be enough to satisfy the requirements of the Obama bill. A global tax will clearly be necessary to force American taxpayers to provide the money.

In election 2008, don’t forget Angry White Man
Gary Hubbell
February 9, 2008

There is a great amount of interest in this year’s presidential elections, as everybody seems to recognize that our next president has to be a lot better than George Bush. The Democrats are riding high with two groundbreaking candidates — a woman and an African-American — while the conservative Republicans are in a quandary about their party’s nod to a quasi-liberal maverick, John McCain.

Each candidate is carefully pandering to a smorgasbord of special-interest groups, ranging from gay, lesbian and transgender people to children of illegal immigrants to working mothers to evangelical Christians.

There is one group no one has recognized, and it is the group that will decide the election: the Angry White Man. The Angry White Man comes from all economic backgrounds, from dirt-poor to filthy rich. He represents all geographic areas in America, from urban sophisticate to rural redneck, deep South to mountain West, left Coast to Eastern Seaboard.

His common traits are that he isn’t looking for anything from anyone — just the promise to be able to make his own way on a level playing field. In many cases, he is an independent businessman and employs several people. He pays more than his share of taxes and works hard.

The victimhood syndrome buzzwords — “disenfranchised,” “marginalized” and “voiceless” — don’t resonate with him. “Press ‘one’ for English” is a curse-word to him. He’s used to picking up the tab, whether it’s the company Christmas party, three sets of braces, three college educations or a beautiful wedding.

He believes the Constitution is to be interpreted literally, not as a “living document” open to the whims and vagaries of a panel of judges who have never worked an honest day in their lives.

The Angry White Man owns firearms, and he’s willing to pick up a gun to defend his home and his country. He is willing to lay down his life to defend the freedom and safety of others, and the thought of killing someone who needs killing really doesn’t bother him.

The Angry White Man is not a metrosexual, a homosexual or a victim. Nobody like him drowned in Hurricane Katrina — he got his people together and got the hell out, then went back in to rescue those too helpless and stupid to help themselves, often as a police officer, a National Guard soldier or a volunteer firefighter.

His last name and religion don’t matter. His background might be Italian, English, Polish, German, Slavic, Irish, or Russian, and he might have Cherokee, Mexican, or Puerto Rican mixed in, but he considers himself a white American.

He’s a man’s man, the kind of guy who likes to play poker, watch football, hunt white-tailed deer, call turkeys, play golf, spend a few bucks at a strip club once in a blue moon, change his own oil and build things. He coaches baseball, soccer and football teams and doesn’t ask for a penny. He’s the kind of guy who can put an addition on his house with a couple of friends, drill an oil well, weld a new bumper for his truck, design a factory and publish books. He can fill a train with 100,000 tons of coal and get it to the power plant on time so that you keep the lights on and never know what it took to flip that light switch.

Women either love him or hate him, but they know he’s a man, not a dishrag. If they’re looking for someone to walk all over, they’ve got the wrong guy. He stands up straight, opens doors for women and says “Yes, sir” and “No, ma’am.”

He might be a Republican and he might be a Democrat; he might be a Libertarian or a Green. He knows that his wife is more emotional than rational, and he guides the family in a rational manner.

He’s not a racist, but he is annoyed and disappointed when people of certain backgrounds exhibit behavior that typifies the worst stereotypes of their race. He’s willing to give everybody a fair chance if they work hard, play by the rules and learn English.

Most important, the Angry White Man is pissed off. When his job site becomes flooded with illegal workers who don’t pay taxes and his wages drop like a stone, he gets righteously angry. When his job gets shipped overseas, and he has to speak to some incomprehensible idiot in India for tech support, he simmers. When Al Sharpton comes on TV, leading some rally for reparations for slavery or some such nonsense, he bites his tongue and he remembers. When a child gets charged with carrying a concealed weapon for mistakenly bringing a penknife to school, he takes note of who the local idiots are in education and law enforcement.

He also votes, and the Angry White Man loathes Hillary Clinton. Her voice reminds him of a shovel scraping a rock. He recoils at the mere sight of her on television. Her very image disgusts him, and he cannot fathom why anyone would want her as their leader. It’s not that she is a woman. It’s that she is who she is. It’s the liberal victim groups she panders to, the “poor me” attitude that she represents, her inability to give a straight answer to an honest question, his tax dollars that she wants to give to people who refuse to do anything for themselves.

There are many millions of Angry White Men. Four million Angry White Men are members of the National Rifle Association, and all of them will vote against Hillary Clinton, just as the great majority of them voted for George Bush.

He hopes that she will be the Democratic nominee for president in 2008, and he will make sure that she gets beaten like a drum.

At his news conference, he voiced support for the District of Columbia's ban on handguns

Police concerned about order to stop screening
By JACK DOUGLAS Jr.

DALLAS -- Security details at Barack Obama's rally Wednesday stopped screening people for weapons at the front gates more than an hour before the Democratic presidential candidate took the stage at Reunion Arena.

The order to put down the metal detectors and stop checking purses and laptop bags came as a surprise to several Dallas police officers who said they believed it was a lapse in security.

Dallas Deputy Police Chief T.W. Lawrence, head of the Police Department's homeland security and special operations divisions, said the order -- apparently made by the U.S. Secret Service -- was meant to speed up the long lines outside and fill the arena's vacant seats before Obama came on.

"Sure," said Lawrence, when asked if he was concerned by the great number of people who had gotten into the building without being checked. But, he added, the turnout of more than 17,000 people seemed to be a "friendly crowd."

The Secret Service did not return a call from the Star-Telegram seeking comment.

Doors opened to the public at 10 a.m., and for the first hour security officers scanned each person who came in and checked their belongings in a process that kept movement of the long lines at a crawl. Then, about 11 a.m., an order came down to allow the people in without being checked.

Several Dallas police officers said it worried them that the arena was packed with people who got in without even a cursory inspection.

They spoke on condition of anonymity because, they said, the order was made by federal officials who were in charge of security at the event.

"How can you not be concerned in this day and age," said one policeman.

Spitzer resigns
Comments 0 | Recommend 0
March 12, 2008 - 10:43AM

NEW YORK (AP) - New York Governor Eliot Spitzer has resigned. The first-term Democrat says he will leave office on Monday, clearing the way for Lieutenant Governor David Paterson to take over.

Spitzer said he's "deeply sorry" that he didn't live up to what was expected of him and that he "sincerely" apologizes to every New Yorker.

He told reporters, "I cannot allow my private failings to disrupt the people's work."

The governor spoke for about a minute, his wife Silda at his side, during the Manhattan news conference.

The scandal that led to Spitzer's downfall erupted Monday amid allegations that he was involved in a prostitution ring. Sources close to the investigation say Spitzer spent tens of thousands of dollars with the call-girl service.

Political rivals have been demanding he resign or face impeachment.

Patterson is set to become the first African American governor of New York. Unlike Spitzer, known for his abrasive style, Patterson has been praised as a conciliator by politicians from both political parties.

I dunno she might be telling the truth.  Look at these pictures I doctored analyzed.

Picture one,  A picture of a "human" that happens to be Hillary boarding Air Force One.

Hmm,  there seems to be something out of place in that tree line....Lets blow it up larger to see what it is.  Hmmm,  Nothing..Just a bush holding a rifle...Wait a minute!!

OMFG! A SNIPER!

From CNN to the New York Times, the media hyped Barack Obama's Portland, Oregon rally on Sunday, some comparing him to a rock star.

Unmentioned in national reporting was the fact that Obama was preceded by a rare, 45-minute free concert by actual rock stars The Decemberists. The Portland-based band has drawn rave reviews from Rolling Stone magazine, which gave their 2005 album Picaresque four and a half stars (out of five), and another four and a half stars for 2007's The Crane Wife.

How many of the people showed up to hear Obama, and how many to hear the band?

Here's how the local paper The Oregonian, which estimated the crowd at 72,000, reported the rally:

"Obama was the biggest star at Sunday's gathering -- though a popular Portland band, The Decemberists, provided the warmup act. With blue skies and temperatures in the 80s, many in the crowd said Waterfront Park was simply the place to be."

CNN headlined its 10 p.m. segment on May 18 with "Barack Obama: Achieving Rock Star Status in Oregon."

The New York Times, which ran a color photo of the crowd, estimated the throng at 75,000, noting that it was "the largest crowd of his campaign so far." There was no mention of The Decemberists, and the Times described the weather as "an unseasonably hot day."

Indie rock Web sites were abuzz with news of the impending concert, which was also announced on the Obama campaign's Web site.

Here's the report from the Indie rock Web site Pitchfork:

By land and by sea, they came to see the great man speak. An estimated 75,000 in all turned out to see presidential hopeful Barack Obama at Portland's Waterfront Park yesterday afternoon-- a record crowd for Obama's own campaign, according to The New York Times, and a record crowd for Oregon political events, according to The Oregonian. Just look at them all!

And hey, they got to see a pretty sweet opening act too. Calling themselves the Decemberists and led by lovably literate Steve Novick endorser Colin Meloy, this feisty fivepiece charmed the gathered for a good 45 minutes before Senator Obama took the stump. They even closed out with a sing-along entitled "Sons & Daughters", which had the masses joining the band to declare "Here all the bombs fade away..." Something tells me this Decemberists band is going places. Just like Senator Obama.

Here's how Pitchfork primed the pump for the concert/rally:

Indie rock's #1 candidate crush Barack Obama is sittin' quite a bit prettier than he was a few weeks ago when the Arcade Fire and Bruce Springsteen went to bat for him, but the dashing junior Senator hasn't quite clinched the Democratic party nomination yet. Next up on the primary agenda are Oregon and Kentucky, whose voters hit the polls Tuesday, May 20. Should Obama win a heaping majority of the delegates up for grabs that day, he'll be within inches of securing the hotly-contested nom.

And look who's arrived to give Obama the extra push he needs to get on the ballot in November. Why, it's none other than those kings and queens of the month after, the Decemberists!

There's nothing wrong with a candidate using celebrity power to draw a crowd, but the media have a responsibility to report their presence. By ignoring the free concert, the Times and other outlets made it appear that 75,000 people were drawn only by Sen. Obama's considerable charisma.