You need one to cash a check. It’s a necesity if you want to drive a car. Unless you look as old as I do (and if that’s the case, I’m sorry) you need one to buy and adult beverage or a pack of cigarettes. If you want to rent an apartment, a hotel room, or even a dvd from the video store you better have one.

It’s what most sixteen year olds can’t wait to get. I had to wait until I was seventeen in NJ. I’ve had one now for over thirty years from three different states.

It is the most common form of personel identification — the state issued photo id.

The House passed a bill to require an ID before voting.

Republican sponsors of the voter identification bill said it was a commonsense way to stop fraud at the polls. People need photo IDs to board planes, buy alcohol or cash checks, said Rep. Vernon Ehlers, R-Mich., chairman of the House Administration Committee. “This is not a new concept.”

This is just comon sense. So naturaly there are those on the left who are already having a cow.

But Democrats assailed the legislation, saying it could hurt minorities, the poor and the elderly — groups that tend to vote Democratic — who might have trouble producing a photo identification.

“This bill is tantamount to a 21st century poll tax,” said Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer, D-Md. “It will disenfranchise large number of legal voters.”

Sorry, but I’ve gotta call BS on that.

It’s not going to hurt minorities.
It’s not going to hurt the poor.
It’s not going to hurt the elderly.
It’s not tantamount to a 21st century poll tax
It’s not going to disenfranchise large numbers of legal voters.

It will help prevent fraud. You lefties are against fradulent voting, aren’t you?

Don Surber put it this way:

Let us uphold My Rights as a voter not to have my vote dilluted by felons, foreigners and frauds.

[...]

I hope the Senate makes voter photo ID the law of the land. If necessary, amend the U.S. Constitution. Voter fraud undermines the Republic.

Yes, it does.

William Jefferson has refused the request from House leader Nancy Pelosi to resign his seat on the Ways and Means Committee.

Democrats sought to get embattled Rep. William Jefferson (news, bio, voting record) to resign his seat on the House’s most prestigious committee.

“In the interest of upholding the high ethical standard of the House Democratic Caucus, I am writing to request your immediate resignation from the Ways and Means Committee,” wrote House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi in the one-sentence correspondence.

The Louisiana Democrat was defiant.

“With respect, I decline to do so,” he wrote back to Pelosi.”I will not give up a committee assignment that is so vital to New Orleans at this crucial time for any uncertain, long-term political strategy.”

Members of Congress have come together to denounce the search of Jefferson’s office on the grounds of separation of powers. But I think that such an argument is going to play pretty poorly in light of the image many Americans have about politicians. Sister Toldjah put it this way:

Congress may have their heart in the right place here with respect to their concerns on the separation of power argument, but before they flip out like Newt Gingrich, Hastert, and others have done, they might want to learn more about what led up to this before they start making sweeping assertions about this being a violation of separation of powers.

She then points to this post at Gateway Pundit which adds,

Could there have been… anything that would have played better into the Democratic mantra of a corrupt and executive power-abusing Bush White House more than Dennis Hastert’s response to the news of Rep. William Jefferson’s (D-LA) outrageous freezer-foil bribery scandal?

Just wondering.

Yesterday, Dennis Hastert was able to diffuse the swarm of media attention surrounding one of the most outrageous bribery cases in US history by taking the focus off of the perpetrating freezer-cash-stashing democrat, William Jefferson (D-LA), and placing the focus squarely on the back of President George Bush.

This will look like Congress covering up for one of their own among those who don’t pay much attention to politics. For those who are more politically aware it goes even further. Here’s Captain Ed’s take:

This can’t be the same Congress that issues subpoenas for all sorts of probes into the executive branch and the agencies it runs. Does Congress really want to establish a precedent that neither branch has to answer subpoenas if issued by the other, even if approved by a judge — which this particular subpoena was?

The FBI had a valid subpoena for the information in Jefferson’s office. He refused to provide it. The FBI had little choice but to go in and take it, and from the description given in the Washington Post, they took extraordinary care not to confiscate legitimate data relating to his legislative responsibilities.

and further,

Hastert and Boehner had better reconsider this fight. Not only is it a loser legally, but it’s also political suicide. They shouldn’t need the Supreme Court to laugh them into oblivion to comprehend the magnitude of this mistake. [my emphasis]

The entire situation is pretty one sided. 535 MOC and their staffs are about the sum total of those who are distressed with the search. Dafydd at Big Lizards puts it clearly:

The Lords of the District are offended that they may actually be required to suffer under the very laws they enacted for the peóns. How crass and vulgar! The “larger separation of powers principle” evidently also takes precedence over the people’s business — bills on immigration, confirmation of judges and the Director of the CIA, the war, taxes, energy exploration, and every other piece o’legislation that was let hang fire while Congress roared about laws that were a bit too universal.

The American people don’t understand that. But even if you explained it to them, which do you think would concern them more: that Congressmen got their knickers in a twist over being searched (with a search warrant)? Or that Congressmen were taking massive bribes to conspire against the general welfare?

Hmmmmm. Tough question.

I have to add this from Confederate Yankee:

One does not need to graduate from a top flight law school to easily discern in the passage above that the commission of a felony is specifically cited as one of three exemptions from the privilege from arrest. The charges being pursued against Jefferson are indeed felony charges.

The “speech and debate” clause only applies to a Congressman’s official duties, and if Hastert, Boehner and other congressmen think that accepting bribes is part of their official duties, then perhaps we need more search warrants executed on Congressional offices, not fewer. [my emphasis]

Heh. Yup.

The coffee is prepared in such a way that it makes those who drink it witty: at least there is not a single soul who, on quitting the house, does not believe himself four times wittier that when he entered it. ~ Charles de Secondat Montesquieu

As you might expect, this morning’s First Cup will focus on the Tom DeLay story. Here’s what others are saying:

Rhymes with Right (Greg) DeLay Withdrawing From CD22 Race! — This post is a very thorough look at the withdraw and the process for a replacement. Greg is one of the precinct chairs in CD22 and it looks like he didn’t get much sleep last night as he traced this story. Of particular interest is update 13 which examines Texas election law that will apply.

Captain’s Quarters (Ed Morrissey) DeLay Steps Down, This Time For Good — “The Hammer has never made it onto my list of favorites in DC, but up until recently he performed reliably in keeping the caucus focused on the agenda. This prosecution pursued by Ronnie Earle is the worst kind of political hackery, and to the extent that this weighed on his campaign, DeLay’s withdrawal and resignation diminishes the political process.”

Power Line (John Hinderaker) DeLay Steps Down — “[A]s I’ve often said, the politically-inspired prosecution of DeLay by Travis County’s discredited DA, Ronnie Earle, is a bad joke. As far as we can tell at the moment, DeLay appears to be yet another victim of the Democrats’ politics of personal destruction–the only politics they know.”

Outside The Beltway (James Joyner) Tom DeLay Drops Re-Election Bid — “This is good news all around for the GOP. It helps stop the bleeding caused by the Abramoff scandal and related misdeeds that, even if he had no criminal complicity in, were direct results of decisions made by DeLay. This early in the cycle, there’s still plenty of time to find a clean candidate to replace DeLay as the Republican nominee.”

The Political Pit Bull (Greg Tinti) Tom DeLay Bows Out Of House Race (Video) — In addition to the video with Hardball host Christ Matthews and TIME Magazine’s Mike Allen on The Situation with Tucker Carlson, Greg had this to say, “First of all, Tucker Carlson’s snap analysis that this is “an ominous sign” for Republicans running for reelection in 2006 is utter rubbish. It might be an “ominous sign” for DeLay’s current legal situation, but this event itself is not representative of any problem for Republicans in 2006. Second, whether this decision was motivated by a concern for the Republican Party as a whole (as DeLay claims) or fear of more criminal allegations (as some on the left believe), this development is a positive one for Republicans.”

I can understand the questions about security. I agree that there are legitimate questions regarding the Dubi government’s stands on Israel and the Taliban. Clearly the administration did a poor job of communications regarding the deal. That all of this has brought overall port security back to our attention is a good thing.

Over riding all of that is my opinion that this whole thing is a mess. The latest, of course, is the House Appropriations Committee’s vote to bar DP World from holding leases or contracts at U.S. ports.

By a 62-2 margin, the House Appropriations Committee on Wednesday voted to bar DP World, which is run by the government of Dubai in the United Arab Emirates, from holding leases or contracts at U.S. ports.

The ports provision was added to a must-pass measure funding the war in Iraq and providing new hurricane relief.

In the Senate, Democrats moved for a vote as well by trying to attach a measure blocking the deal to legislation designed to overhaul rules governing travel, gifts and their dealings with lobbyists.

The deal has disapeared into the background of the discussion, or as Ed Morrissey put it,

The merits and demerits of the deal have become irrelevant in the panicked atmosphere that appears to have afflicted Congressional Republicans. Regardless of the merits of the deal — which I still don’t like — a second review would have allowed the White House to calm the hysteria and at least have an opportunity to get the facts on the table.

It is this political aspect that makes this a loser all the way around. Flopping Aces sees it as a panicked reaction.

But the fact that the Republicans went into panic mode while the Democrats took advantage of this panic has made me sadly reconsider. This smacks of going along with the polls, and that will not get us anywhere.

While there have been honest differences on the merits, there have been many more instances of misinformation and mischaracterization regarding the deal. Following the compromise that was reached to go through a second review, the decision to put this legislation on the table is just a bad, bad idea. Captain Ed again,

All this hysteria does is make the Republicans look as foolish and uninformed as Democrats. Instead of focusing on the hypocrisy of the opposition party (under whose administration the Chinese and Saudis took over management of American ports, and whose last President has been advising the UAE on the deal) in pushing ethnic profiling for port operators but not for immigration and airport security, the GOP has abandoned its President and a reasonable offer to suspend the deal pending review and oversight by Congress at the end of it. They could have waited for that review and allowed all the facts to come to light, and then made an informed and rational decision to kill it. This measure is the equivalent of putting hands over ears and shouting nonsense to avoid hearing any debate.

Accoring to this AP story the President is standing by his earlier veto promise.

“Our focus is on continuing to work with Congress to move forward on this issue,” White House press secretary Scott McClellan told reporters. “The lines of communication are open. There are members who have concerns. We believe it’s important to work with Congress to address those concerns, and find a way forward.”

It’s a mess. An ugly mess. John Hinderaker put it well in an email to Captain Ed — “the committee’s Republicans have formed a circular firing squad.”

In this early mid-term primary, former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay easily defeated his three challengers.

Opponent Tom Campbell, former general counsel for the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, fell short of forcing the former House majority leader into a runoff.

DeLay won 62 percent of the vote in the 22nd Congressional District, which covers parts of Harris, Brazoria, Fort Bend and Galveston counties, according to the totals from 97 percent of precincts.

“I have always placed my faith in the voters, and today’s vote shows they have placed their full faith in me,” DeLay said in a written victory statement. “This race was about who can effectively represent the values and the priorities of the people in this district, and I’m proud to have earned, and overwhelmingly kept, that trust among Republican voters.”

His battle in November will be against Democrat Nick Lampson, Steve Stockman who is seeking a spot on the ballot as an independent, and a still to be chosen Libertarian Party candidate.

First DeLay will have his day in court facing partisan hack prosecutor Ronnie Earle’s Grand Jury-shopped charges.

The announcement by Rep. Tom DeLay, that he would not seek a return to his position as House majority leader, isn’t really a surprise. It is a story with several other stories wrapped up inside.

First, the outer story.

Rep. Tom DeLay, the defiant face of a conservative revolution in Congress, stepped down as House majority leader on Saturday under pressure from Republicans staggered by an election-year corruption scandal.

“During my time in Congress, I have always acted in an ethical manner within the rules of our body and the laws of our land,” the Texas lawmaker told fellow Republicans in a letter informing them of his decision.

Still, referring to criminal charges he faces in his home state, he added, “I cannot allow our adversaries to divide and distract our attention.”

DeLay temporarily gave up his leadership post after he was charged, but always insisted he would reclaim his duties after clearing his name.

His turnabout cleared the way for leadership elections among Republicans buffeted by poor polls and by lobbyist Jack Abramoff’s confessions of guilt on corruption charges in connection with congressional wining and dining.

Even within this announcement there are several things to notice. Most importantly, as of yet Rep. DeLay hasn’t been convicted of anything. Unlike the other side of the aisle, Republican rules required DeLay to step down on the bringing of charges. Democrats do not require that of their members. The charges in Texas, brought by partisan hack Ronnie Earle, are still working their way through the courts. His involvement with Jack Abramoff has been heavily implied but not to the point of charges, let alone proof of any wrong-doing.

Let me step aside for one second to say that if it is proven that DeLay broke the law he should be punished appropriately. I am not trying to say in any way that he should be given a pass because of his position or his political affiliation.

Back to the paragraphs I cited above, it is interesting to note (but not surprising) how TOM characterizes DeLay as, “the defiant face of a conservative revolution in Congress.” What was he defying? The will of the people who elected him? The plans and purposes of the party that put him in his position of leadership? Or is it that he was defiant to the party that is not in the majority? And what is the so called conservative revolution? Did the Republicans go out to the masses, guns in hand, and force the electorate to place them in the majority?

Also in this part of the report is, “[h]is turnabout cleared the way for leadership elections among Republicans.” Republicans are as much political animals as any politicians. It is perhaps sad, but not surprising, that they would leave a wounded member of their pride behind as they face attacks from other predators. It may even be the politically expedient thing to do. Doesn’t make it pretty. More on those interested in the Majority leader’s position in a moment.

The next act in this political drama is the hypocritical left.

“The culture of corruption is so pervasive in the Republican conference that a single person stepping down is not nearly enough to clean up the Republican Congress,” said Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California, the Democratic leader.

Added Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, chairman of the House Democratic campaign organization: “With the permanence of their special interest philosophy, a change in the Republican cast of characters simply doesn’t matter.”

So, we see what their spin is going to be. The meme of, “The Culture of Corruption,” is just the latest example of the Democrats strategy of repeating a lie often enough so that the great unwashed masses believe that it’s true.

Let me make my thoughts clear on this. There very well may be corrupt politicians. In fact, I have no doubt that there are. More to the point, I would be surprised if there aren’t. But it is quite a leap to equate that with there being a culture of corruption. The constant harping that there is one is nothing more than an attempt to paint all Republicans as corrupt while ignoring any corruption among their own members. I guess they’ve forgotten about the House banking scandal.

Let me say this about the politicians on the left, with a few possible exceptions, I don’t think they are corrupt. I think they are completely wrong about many or most issues. I think they are far more concerned with partisanship than with doing what’s right. I think they are more interested in regaining power than with doing what is in the best interest of the Country. But none of that makes them corrupt, it just makes them wrong.

Finally, two House Republicans have made clear that they intend to seek the Majority Leader’s post; Roy Blunt of Missouri, and John Boehner of Ohio.

Blunt is reported to be,

different in style from the stridently partisan DeLay, Blunt is equally conservative and took a leading role in moving President Bush’s tax cut packages through the House. As whip, Blunt took the lead last year in the uphill struggle to secure votes needed to pass the Central America Free Trade Agreement.

Boehner, who is also interested in the position,

has a strong conservative record, but has also shown an ability to reach across party lines. He pushed pension legislation through the House last year, attracting nearly 300 votes after a last-minute accommodation with the United Auto Workers.

DeLay’s stepping down is just a small part in the drama. There will be many acts that follow.

Partisan hack Prosecutor Ronnie Earle isn’t happy with the legal tactics used by Rep. Tom Delay.

Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle said in court documents that the Republican is “attempting to leapfrog” over the usual court procedures by asking the state’s highest criminal court to dismiss all charges against him or to order a trial right away.

[...]

He has been pressing the state’s highest criminal court to address the charges quickly because he wants to regain his post before his colleagues call for new leadership elections later this month.

The case has been on hold while prosecutors appeal a judge’s dismissal of some of the charges.

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has not decided whether to take the case but last week asked prosecutors to file briefs making their arguments.

The lawyers were given a week to file their arguments just about a week ago. This should certainly help get 2006 off to an interesting start.

Rep. Tom DeLay returns to court today with his lawyers asking for dismissal of the charges against him. AP:

Attorneys for Rep. Tom DeLay are hoping a judge will dismiss the conspiracy and money laundering charges against the former House majority leader so he can regain the powerful seat.

DeLay was to appear in court Tuesday before a judge who will decide whether the criminal case should continue to trial.

DeLay had to relinquish his leadership post in Congress after he was indicted in September. His attorneys are pushing for a December trial in hopes that DeLay is cleared so he can regain his title before Congress returns to session in January. Otherwise, lawmakers could elect a new majority leader.

Tuesday’s hearing is DeLay’s first before Senior Judge Pat Priest, who was appointed to the case after DeLay’s attorneys succeeded in having the first judge removed because of his campaign contributions to Democratic candidates and causes.

While we will have to wait and see how this plays out, to this non-lawyer it seems as if dismissing the charges is the correct thing to do. To me the charges apear to be nothing more than a political hatchet job without merit.

If the case goes forward to trial another hearing will most likely be held to determine if the case should be moved from Austin to DeLay’s home county of Fort Bend.

Whatever the results, I am not convinced that Rep. DeLay is the best person to lead the Republican Senate going forward. While he has driven many good initiatives, the Republicans need leadership that will return them to their fiscal conservatism and fight for those things that brought them to the majority. It is also important to have leadership that remembers that we are the majority.

UPDATE: AP’s latest report says,

Rep. Tom DeLay will have to wait for a decision on whether conspiracy charges against him will be dropped without a trial, a judge said Tuesday.

At a hearing, Senior Judge Pat Priest said he wanted to read written responses from both sides before making his ruling, and didn’t say how long it might take. The hearing on various motions was continuing Tuesday.

As I mentioned briefly last night I will be serving jury duty today. It’s not a trial jury, but the end of a six month stint on a grand jury. Rumor has it that Ronnie Earle will be traveling across the gulf to seek further charges against Tom DeLay. Well, maybe not. Still, I have been examining the DeLay case with a bit more interest than I would have had before my jury service.

The latest in Earle’s shennanigans would be laughable if it weren’t so outrageous.

A prosecutor tried to persuade a grand jury that Rep. Tom DeLay tacitly approved illegal use of campaign money and became angry when jurors decided against an indictment, according to two sources directly familiar with the proceeding.

“The mood was unpleasant,” one source said Wednesday, describing prosecutor Travis County prosecutor Ronnie Earle’s reaction.

The sources insisted on anonymity because of grand jury secrecy.

Earle presented evidence to three grand juries. Two of them returned indictments against DeLay, triggering a House Republican rule that forced the Texas Republican to step aside – at least temporarily – from his post as majority leader.

I can really only see two views on this whole affair. If you are on the side that wants to get DeLay by any means possible, well then you probably see Earle as a vigorous prosecutor doing his job. However, if you have half the sense that God gave a water buffalo you can probably see the abuse of power at work here.

One source said the sole evidence Earle presented to the grand jury that declined to indict was a DeLay interview with the prosecutor in August. DeLay reportedly said he was generally aware of activities of his associates.

The source said Earle tried to convince the jurors that if DeLay “didn’t say, ‘Stop it,’ he gave his tacit approval.”

I am “generally aware” of the activities of those I work with. Under that standard can I be charged if they are cheating on their taxes? Uh, doubt it. But if there’s a gray-haired prosecuter with a Texas drawl in the room this morning I’m going to be a bit concerned.

AP is reporting,

A Texas grand jury on Wednesday charged Rep. Tom DeLay and two political associates with conspiracy in a campaign finance scheme, an indictment that could force him to step down as House majority leader.

[...]

House Republican Party rules require leaders who are indicted to temporarily step aside from their leadership posts.

More on this soon.

QUICK UPDATE: Information is quickly expanding. The story, now linked here, has this additional information.

GOP congressional officials said the plan was for DeLay to temporarily relinquish his leadership post and Speaker Dennis Hastert will recommend that Rep. David Dreier of California step into those duties.

Early details on the indictment:

“The defendants enetered into an agreement with each other or with TRMPAC (Texans for a Republican Majority Political Action Committee) to make a political contribution in violation of the Texas election code,” says the four-page indictment. “The contribution was made directly to the Republican National Committee within 60 days of a general election.”

Captain Ed looked at the political strong arm techniques used by DA Ronnie Earle back in June. Read it here.

UPDATE II: Via Outside the Beltway comes this press release from Senator DeLay’s law firm.

A Legal Analysis of Earle’s Case in a Nutshell

Ronnie Earle argues that Tom DeLay conspired to make a contribution to a political party in violation of the Texas Election Code. There was no contribution to a political party in violation of the Texas Election Code. There was no conspiracy. Ronnie Earle is wrong on the facts. Ronnie Earle is wrong on the law.

* According to the indictment, the conspiracy was to unlawfully make a political contribution of corporate funds to a political party within 60 days of an election.
* The Texas Election Code clearly states that “A corporation or labor organization may not knowingly make a contribution [to a political party] during a period beginning on the 60th day before the date of a general election for state and county officers and continuing through the day of the election.” Title 15, Texas Election Code, § 253.104. Texas law also states in part that “A person commits criminal conspiracy if, with intent that a felony be committed: (1) he agrees with one or more persons that they or one or more of them engage in conduct that would constitute the offense; and (2) he or one or more of them performs an overt act in pursuance of the agreement.”

The Problems with Earle’s case:

* In an effort to contrive jurisdiction over DeLay, Earle charges that because Congressman DeLay may have known about the transaction before it occurred, he was then part of a conspiracy.
* However, Earle’s office has sworn testimony and other exculpatory evidence showing that Congressman DeLay did not have knowledge of the transaction.

In addition:

* No corporation or labor organization was indicted in this conspiracy. Neither Jim Ellis nor John Colyandro is a corporation or labor organization.
* No corporation or labor organization made a contribution during 60 days of an election.
* What constitutes a contribution under the Texas Election Code is not strictly defined.
* Neither the RNC nor RNSEC constitute a political party under Texas election law. They are considered PACs, just as the DNC is.
* Corporations in Texas could have legally made contributions to the RNC or RNSEC during the period in question under Texas election law.
* There was no violation of the Texas Election Code. There was no conspiracy. The underlying transaction was legal. Had corporations sent money directly to the RNC or RNSEC, the transaction would be legal. How could anyone conspire to do indirectly what could legally have been done directly?

DISCUSSING:
Those discussing the story (2:48pm est 4:33pm est)
Outside the Beltway here and here.
GOP Bloggers here, here, here, and here. ADDED: here, here and here. The last link has a good analysis by Stephen Spruiell.
WILLisms (With a good look at the political hack angle)
Powerline Blog
Blogs for Bush
Iowa Voice
Michelle Malkin (as extensive and as thorough as you would think it would be)