Many conservative Republicans don’t like John McCain because he is so unpredictable and seems to be so liberal on a lot of issues that are of concern to us.

Now comes this interesting story in The Hill.

It seems while Daschle and Company were courting people such as Lincoln Chaffee and Jim Jeffords to switch parties and give the Democrats the majority in the Senate (Jeffords eventually turned Independent and caucused with the Democrats, giving them the majority) they overlooked someone whose own chief political strategist said might switch if the right people asked him: John McCain.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was close to leaving the Republican Party in 2001, weeks before then-Sen. Jim Jeffords (Vt.) famously announced his decision to become an Independent, according to former Democratic lawmakers who say they were involved in the discussions.

In interviews with The Hill this month, former Sen. Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) and ex-Rep. Tom Downey (D-N.Y.) said there were nearly two months of talks with the maverick lawmaker following an approach by John Weaver, McCain’s chief political strategist.

Democrats had contacted Jeffords and then-Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I.) in the early months of 2001 about switching parties, but in McCain’s case, they said, it was McCain’s top strategist who came to them.

At the end of their March 31, 2001 lunch at a Chinese restaurant in Bethesda, Md., Downey said Weaver asked why Democrats hadn’t asked McCain to switch parties.

Downey, a well-connected lobbyist, said he was stunned.

“You’re really wondering?” Downey said he told Weaver. “What do you mean you’re wondering?”

“Well, if the right people asked him,” Weaver said, according to Downey, adding that he responded, “The calls will be made. Who do you want?” Weaver this week said he did have lunch with Downey that spring, pointing out that he and Downey “are very good friends.”

He claims, however, that Downey is grossly mischaracterizing their exchange: “We certainly didn’t discuss in any detail about the senator’s political plans and any discussion about party-switchers, generically, would have been limited to the idle gossip which was all around the city about the [Democrats’] aggressive approach about getting any GOP senator to switch in order to gain the majority. Nothing more or less than that.”

Downey said Weaver is well aware that their discussion was much more than typical Washington chit-chat.

I guess it all depends on which person you prefer to believe.

My husband’s elbow is still red, hot and swollen and quite painful. He has carried a low to mid-grade fever all day today and is scheduled to see the orthopedic surgeon tomorrow so he can determine what the problem is.

I know he has some sort of infection just because he has a fever and the elbow is red and hot. I pray it’s nothing serious, as he has not been feeling well today and it’s not like him to even say he doesn’t feel well.

I ask your continued prayers and will keep you posted on his condition.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ former chief of staff Kyle Sampson gave testimony today to the Senate Judiciary Committee concerning the firings of the eight US Attorneys.

Alberto Gonzales’ former top aide testified Thursday that the attorney general was mistaken when he said he was not involved in the firing of eight U.S. attorneys, adding that the dismissals are “a benign, rather than sinister, story.”

Under questioning by Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, Kyle Sampson said Gonzales was involved in the decision to fire the eight attorneys, attending a meeting on the decision 10 days before it was carried out. He said Gonzales was also wrong when he said other senior Justice Department aides gave Congress inaccurate information because they hadn’t been fully briefed about the firings.

“I don’t remember if the attorney general ever saw documents. I didn’t prepare memos for him on this issue. But we did discuss it as early as — before he became the attorney general, when he was the attorney general designate in January of 2005, I think; and then, from time to time, as the process was, sort of, in a thinking phase through 2005 and 2006. And then I remember discussing it with him as the process sort of came to a conclusion in the fall of 2006,” he said.

Sampson said he made recommendations about which attorneys should be fired, but “the decision makers in this case were the attorney general and the president.”

The former chief of staff argued that the imbroglio had blown up because of poor explanations, but not poor motivations. He also apologized for the confusion and misunderstanding that accompanied the explanation of the firings to senators. A longtime veteran of the Justice Department, he said he resigned because he let down the attorney general by failing to avoid this messy situation.

“As the attorney general’s chief of staff, I could have and should have helped to prevent this. In failing to do so, I let the attorney general and the department down. For that reason, I offered the attorney general my resignation. I was not asked to resign. I simply felt honor-bound to accept my share of blame for this problem and to hold myself accountable,” he said.

He added that none of the attorneys were let go because of political manipulations.

“The distinction between political- and performance-related reasons for removing a U.S. attorney is, in my view, largely artificial. A U.S. attorney who is unsuccessful from a political perspective, either because he or she has alienated the leadership of the department in Washington or cannot work constructively with law enforcement or other governmental constituencies in the district, is unsuccessful,” Sampson said.

I confess I haven’t watched any of the news about this and have only read bits and pieces in the news, but I do know any president has the right to fire any political apointee for any or no reason. They serve “at the pleasure of the president.”

Since I haven’t watched the television or read much more than I’ve given you on this page I don’t know if anyone before this has been under oath and if this testimony contradicts any of what may have been said under oath.

I’m sorry eight people lost their jobs and some are having difficulty finding new ones, though I can’t quite figure out why it would be hard for an attorney to find a job. He or she can always hang out his or her own shingle if necessary.

I have come to the conclusion that this is a fishing expedition on the part of congress to show its muscle in its oversight role, but somehow it doesn’t become either side.

Read the rest of the story at the above link.

While going to several appointments yesterday I was able to listen to the car radio, which is tuned to a talk station.

The big hot-button issue of the day was a Hispanic advocacy group asking the North Carolina state legislature to approve drivers’ licenses to illegal immigrants. They are also lobbying to get a better wage for the illegal immigrants.

Excuse me, but aren’t they illegal immigrants, which means they shouldn’t be here anyway?

How brazen are these people going to get demanding “rights” while they are here illegally and by definition are criminals?

Actually, when I was taking driver’s education when I was a teen I remember the class being told driving is not a right—it is a privilege.

Go ahead and demand their pay be $10 more an hour than an American or legal alien gets for the same job and maybe it will cause a mass exodus back to across our southern border.

BTW, I live in South Carolina but am close to the North Carolina border so I get to hear the North Carolina news.

This is just mind-boggling to me.

It’s not just Muslims refusing to ring up pork or alcohol products, but also Christians who refuse to dispense the “morning after” pill and other “religions” who refuse to remove body piercings that are presenting a conundrum for retailers.

Can a cashier or clerk wish a customer “Merry Christmas”?

Must a pharmacist dispense birth control devices if his faith forbids it?

Can a Muslim clerk refuse to touch a whisky or beer bottle, or a pork chop?

Disputes between retailers and employees over religious beliefs in the United States can be traced back to the Puritans, who established laws that retail stores must not open on Sundays. Hundreds of years later, retailers are still dealing with how to address an employee’s religious practices.

Religious discrimination complaints to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) have been rising over the past 10 years. Last year, the EEOC received 2,541 complaints, up 48 percent from 1,709 in 1997.

The commission has found that about 60 percent of the cases have “no reasonable cause” and about 4 percent to 10 percent do have a reasonable cause.

In Minnesota, Target has been the subject of scrutiny since a Minneapolis Star Tribune reported earlier this month that some Muslim supermarket cashiers ask non-Muslim co-workers or customers to scan pork products for them. They’re following a strict interpretation of the Koran, which forbids touching pork products.

Unlike the Puritans, today’s workers are armed with Title VII of the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits religious discrimination in the workplace. Under it, employers are required to make “reasonable accommodations” for an employee’s religious beliefs. “Reasonable” is defined as something that doesn’t create “undue hardship” on the employer or co-workers.

The law leaves room for interpretation. When an accusation of religious discrimination is filed against a company, it often becomes news.

“The wording of Title VII is pretty broad. It’s up to the courts to decide in many of these issues,” says Matthew McReynolds, a staff attorney at Pacific Justice Institute, a Sacramento, Calif., legal-assistance group that represents individuals in civil liberties cases, including religious discrimination issues.

Some of the complaints seem ridiculous to me while others seem reasonable. It all depends on perspective of the individual, I suppose.

Please read the entire article.

The Congressional Research Service (CRS), a bipartisan group that has reported all pork in bills for the past twelve years suddenly has decided to stop doing that job and let other agencies do it.

This has Republican legislators upset because they are worried there might have been some pressure put on CRS by the leaders of the new Congress. They are not saying that has happened but are suspicious.

The federal agency that tracked pork-barrel spending during the 12 years of the Republican congressional majority has discontinued the practice since Democrats took power, riling lawmakers suspicious of the timing and concerned about the pace of fat being added to bills.

“To me, something doesn’t smell right,” said Sen. Jim DeMint, South Carolina Republican. “I just hope no one is pressuring” the Congressional Research Service (CRS).

While not blaming the Democratic leadership, Mr. DeMint added: “I guess if you’re looking for a motive, you’d have to look in that direction.”

CRS, a nonpartisan agency of the Library of Congress created to conduct research for members of Congress on legislative issues, changed its policy in February — a month after Democrats took control of the Congress and vowed to curb the number of special-interest projects inserted into spending bills or even reports that don’t require a vote.

CRS Director Daniel P. Mulhollan developed the policy after consulting with “internal CRS appropriations experts” and deciding the service was redundant with what other agencies do, CRS spokeswoman Janine D’Addario said.

“His decision was strictly an internal decision,” said Miss D’Addario, whose agency began providing Congress members with information on earmarks in 1994, when Mr. Mulhollan took over as director.

CRS said the Office of Management and Budget recently has been taking on a greater role in monitoring earmarks. And with both chambers of Congress this year establishing new guidelines and clearer definitions of earmarks, the agency said its role as a scorekeeper of earmarks is obsolete.

Several lawmakers, particularly those who had come to rely on the agency to identify the dollar value of earmarks in appropriations and other laws, were caught off guard by the change.

“It’s troubling — I can’t think of any justification for that,” said Rep. Jeff Flake, Arizona Republican. “They’ve done good research in the past. … That’s what they’re here for — the benefit of the members” of Congress.

Democratic leaders with the House and Senate appropriations committees say they did not persuade Mr. Mulhollan to drop his agency’s earmark practice.

What seems to be so crucial is that estimates by everyone else were much lower than the CRS estimates and anyone watching wasteful pork barrel spending depended on this non-partisan branch of the Library of Congress to keep the figures straight.

Republicans said they want an independent observer because pork is often in the eye of the beholder and estimates of the amount vary widely.

Citizens Against Government Waste put the figure for 2006 at $29 billion, while Republicans on the House Appropriations Committee said it was $17 billion. Mr. DeMint, citing a CRS report, said the amount totaled more than $67 billion.

Mr. DeMint said no other agency or group has the resources, expertise and access to provide Congress with data on earmarks.

“This is really baffling that CRS would do this,” he said.

I hope since the Congress seems to be in an investigative mood for everything Bush or Bush Administration they will take enough time to come up for air and check into this situation also.

Source.

My husband has developed a very swollen and hot elbow from unknown cause.

Wednesday night he was running a high fever so I insisted he go to the ER.

The doctors took blood and did X-rays. The bloodwork looks fine but they are concerned about the fever because it could mean an infection in the elbow joint, so they have told us to get in touch with an orthopedic doctor for him to take a look at it.

He has had a shot of a powerful anti-biotic and they gave him a pill for the pain which will get him through the night. Tomorrow I will pick up his prescription for his anti-biotic and pain medication.

This is a big concern to me and our children because about a month ago our son had had a fever for some time and awakened to find both legs swollen to twice their normal size.

He also went to the ER and was admitted for a staph and strep infection in both legs. If it hadn’t been caught and treated then he could have died.

We want to make sure this infection is only in the soft tissue and not in the bone or joint.

Depending on when I can get an appointment with the orthopedic doctor I may or may not be doing much blogging today. Tonto will be here and will do an excellent job.

He professes to be a liberal but he and I agree on a lot of issues that are conservative, just as I agree on some social issues that are considered liberal or moderate.

I ask you to send up a few prayers for my husband. Thank you and I’ll keep you posted.

She certainly looks thrilled to be there to me. NOT!

Great Britain says GPS devices show the sailors and marines were 1.7 nautical miles inside Iraqi waters. They were, by the way, performing a mission for the UN.