As the WaPo describes him, a "top adviser" to the Mitt Romney campaign was caught with a Web site that attacked Fred Thompson:

Before it vanished, the front page of the website featured a picture of a regal Thompson dressed in a frilly outfit more befitting a Gilbert and Sullivan production than a presidential campaign. Under the heading, "Playboy Fred," the site asks the question: "Once a Pro-Choice Skirt Chaser, Now Standard Bearer of the Religious Right?"

Nice. Real classy. Was this done at the request of the Romney campaign? If so, it should be a deal breaker for Mitt Romney. Especially considering Romney's flirtation with abortion is far, far more extensive than whatever Fred Thompson has done on the subject.

We're a long way from Reagan's 11th commandment.

The media, in conjunction with the Democrats, started their offensive against the surge in Iraq with the leaked draft of the GAO's report on political progress in Iraq last week. It's continued unabated so far this week. But they're getting sloppy, publishing two stories today which are demonstrably false.

The first is an Associated Press story that attempts to portray a group in Iraq as a real opposition party engaged in a civil war: Sunni Insurgent Group Names Education Minister in Bid to Oppose Iraqi Government. The problem with the story is the group portrayed, the Islamic State of Iraq, has already been shown to be just a front group for Al Qaida. The leader quoted in the article, Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, is fictional. As these facts have been previously reported on by the mainstream media just this past July, this sort of propaganda by the AP is unforgivable.

The second is a laughable story in the New York Times, Envoy's Letter Counters Bush on Dismantling of Iraq Army. In an attempt to discredit President Bush, the author of the article states that a recent quote of Bush claiming that the United States' original plan was not to disband the Iraqi Army was wrong -- and he has the memos from Paul Bremer to prove it!

Captain Ed explains the difference between imwithfred.com and imwithfred2008.com. Apparently, someone who is on record as a supporter of move on and John Kerry registered the domain name imwithfred2008.com and promptly filled it with links to racist organizations.

Note, just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should. and dirty tricks of this order can be found out easily and just look amateurish. More here and here.

Is the fact that dirty tricks are targeting, not John McCain, not Mitt Romney, not Rudy Giuliani, but a guy who hasn't even announced yet of any significance? I hesitate to read too much into this as it's a datapoint of just one guy, but I do find it interesting that he passed up many more significant targets to zero in on ol' Fred Thompson.

Fred Thompson is in the consciousness of the Democrats, and he scared at least one of them enough to do something stupid and ugly.

Captain Ed at the excellent Captain's Quarters has the lowdown:

It doesn't take long for provocateurs to crawl out of the woodwork to attack candidates, especially in stealth attacks. With Fred Thompson, they've apparently started before he officially enters the race -- and in one case, race is the operative word. Apparently hoping to confuse web surfers looking for Fred's website at www.imwithfred.com, a new site has appeared at www.imwithfred2008.com -- only this site welcomes people to the Ku Klux Klan, "Bringing a Message of Hope and Deliverance to White Christian America!" It includes links to a variety of disgusting racist sites.

Ed tracked down the domain name and traced it back to a Henry Reynolds of Santa Monica, Calif. It turns out that Mr. Reynolds is a lawyer and donated money to MoveOn, DNC Services and John Kerry according to OpenSecrets.org.

But wait, it gets better. Mr. Reynolds got a bit spooked and changed the domain name info and now the site -- imwithfred2008.com -- links to John Edwards' official campaign website.

This is just another example of how low some members of the political left in this country will go -- outing gay and philandering Republicans is one thing (albeit disgusting in its own right), associating a leading politician with the KKK and racism is quite another. These people are so desperate to regain power that they've now resorted to this.

For the record, the idiot, Henry Reynolds, has nothing to do with John Edwards or any other politician with the exception of directly donating funds to John Kerry. But the fact that he gave to MoveOn and redirected the site to John Edwards is telling.

No word from the Fred Thompson camp, but they owe Cap'n Ed a big old thank you. Just as an aside, this doesn't speak too highly of Thompson's internet team that they didn't procure that domain name.

A move is afoot by Republicans here in California to change the way electoral votes are portioned out in the state. Right now in Cali, as in 48 other states, there is a winner-take-all system. In 2004 John Kerry won at the ballot box so he got all 55 electoral votes. What the GOP wants to do is rejigger the process (and quickly!) so those electoral votes would be sliced up by congressional district. Shades of gerrymandering, no?

The change could only come if it passes as a public initiative next June. And the GOP is firing up the money machine to make sure it gets on the ballot.

(Consultant Kevin) Eckery said the fundraising to begin this week is aimed at getting $300,000 to $500,000 for polling and other preliminary work before signature-gathering. Collecting the necessary 434,000 signatures could cost $2 million.

Proponents are optimistic that backers of the presidential candidates will ante up. Though there are federal limits to donations to candidates, California law places no bar on the amount donors can spend on initiatives.

Democrats, not surprisingly, are crying foul.

"This is all about rigging the system, fixing the system, to tilt the electoral college to the Republicans, all under the pretense of being a reform," (Democratic strategist Chris) Lehane said.

Though it's unclear whether the Dems are organizing a fight against the measure.

There's not too many good things you could say good about the last several GOP-led Congresses. The prescription drug bill and McCain-Feingold are two of the train wreck pieces of legislation passed.

That said, at least they didn't have the audacity to steal a vote when they were losing it. No, leave that up to Nancy Pelosi's "Most Ethical Congress Ever":

As time expired on voting, the sitting House speaker, Rep. Michael R. McNulty, New York Democrat, declared the Republican measure had failed on a 214-214 tie vote. But because some members changed their votes in the final seconds of voting, the electronic tally board showed the vote as 215-213, indicating the motion had passed, when Mr. McNulty struck his gavel.

Republicans immediately called for the 215-213 tally to stand, and began walking off the House floor in protest when Mr. NcNulty allowed more members to change their votes. The final tally was 212-216, with the motion failing.

For those who don't understand the archaic procedures of the House, once the gavel comes down, things stop and the vote is final but that's not what happened here. The Democrats changed a vote in the House of Representatives in full-view of the country. They aren't even trying to hide their conniving ways anymore, even when all the facts show the GOP won the vote.

To make things worse, the bill will provide illegal aliens (yes, criminals) with hard-working Americans tax money. Talk about insult to injury. Hey, if you can't win on the issues, just cheat and steal. I guess if you have an approval rating of 3% on your handling of the Iraq war, you can't sink much deeper so why not drop any pretense of being ethical.

In the last four presidential elections, California has voted for a Democrat. That's a galling fact-of-life for Republican lawyer Thomas Hiltachk, who is pushing a ballot initiative to radically alter how the state's electoral votes are counted:

California awards its cache of 55 electoral votes to the statewide winner in presidential elections - the largest single prize in the nation. But a prominent Republican lawyer wants to put a proposal on the ballot that would award the statewide winner only two electoral votes. The rest would be distributed to the winning candidate in each of the state's congressional districts. In effect, that would create 53 races, each with one electoral vote up for grabs.

The initiative is titled The Presidential Election Reform Act. Hiltachk works out of Sacramento, at a firm that represents the California Republican Party. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, a past client of Hiltachk's, disavows any connection to the initiative. State Republican Chairman Ron Nehring, on the other hand, seems to think it's a swell idea, saying, "We'll take a serious look at it, once it qualifies for the ballot."

Call it gerrymandering writ-large. If you can't win California's electoral votes the way the elections are currently run, change the rules! Let's hope the voters of the Golden State shoot this shameless attempt at rigging the next election down in flames. If you want to make democracy more representative, then do so in every state of the union. These are, after all, national elections.

Fred Thompson strikes fear in the hearts of his fellow GOP contenders as well as the Democratic field. He's got a voice that's recognizable and a face that looks presidential. He's a celebrity and one that generally played the good guy.

Lately, every new dawn brings another smear attempt on Thompson, who has not yet committed to run. The LA Times has written hit pieces with regularity and is showing that they are digging deeper for this non-candidate than they do for Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards who are all in the race.

The latest insinuation smear comes from the vile Wonkette site, which rounds up the latest rumors. I won't blockquote the particular passage as it doesn't even warrant a view. Note the picture of Thompson and Rush Limbaugh to really get under the skin of conservatives. Wonkette has become a parody of itself; back when Ann Marie Cox ran the site, it was snarky, yet it had some interesting tidbits and was good for at least a chuckle. Now the site is just plain partisan and shrill. They deal in innuendo and take no greater pleasure in floating rumors with absolutely zero substantiation. In other words, the site is exactly what trained reporters say blogs are -- rumor mills that perpetuate rumors for their partisan benefactors.

The story apparently got legs when Thompson hired an openly gay former aide (file in PDF) to Senator Rick Santorum. The fact that the man has a lot of experience on Capitol Hill and is an asset to the non-campaign means nothing to these people. They deduce that if Fred Thompson hires and openly gay man to assist him, Thompson himself must be gay. By that line of reasoning, if Barack Obama hires a white guy to assist him, Barack must be white. I also wonder if Hillary has any openly gay aides working in her campaign.

Karl Rove's mission in life is securing and keeping a Republican majority forever and ever, amen. Things aren't exactly going to plan (see: election '06) and now the beleaguered Rove's dirty trade secrets are coming out, in the attorneys general kerfuffle, the recent e-mail flap and today in a brand-spanking new scandal.

The administrator of the General Services Administration, Lurita Alexis Doan, is under investigation for allegedly trying to use her agency to help GOP candidates. Which is, you know, against the law and stuff. The LATimes today has the lowdown on a new report:

The GSA administrator displayed no reservations in her willingness to commit GSA resources, including its human capital, to the Republican Party," the report says. "Her actions constitute an obvious misuse of her official authority and were made for the purpose of affecting the result of an election."

The report, which has not been released, focused on a meeting in which a White House political aide briefed Doan's staff after the 2006 congressional elections. At the January meeting, attended by about three dozen agency managers, Doan asked: "What can we do to help our candidates?"

Wherever would Doan get such an idea to illegally use government resources to further the GOP agenda? Possibly from Karl Rove's touring multimedia show:

The Los Angeles Times has reported that similar PowerPoint presentations were made by Rove and other White House officials at nearly every other Cabinet agency, except the Defense and Justice departments. During such presentations, employees said they got a not-so-subtle message about helping endangered Republicans.

The Doan report isn't expected to be made public for another month so expect to hear more about it then.

It's a bad week for Karl Rove. First he's ambushed by Sheryl Crow, of all people, at the correspondents' dinner. Now comes word from the Los Angeles Times that Rove is under investigation (I wonder which he considers worse):

the Office of Special Counsel is preparing to jump into one of the most sensitive and potentially explosive issues in Washington, launching a broad investigation into key elements of the White House political operations that for more than six years have been headed by chief strategist Karl Rove.

The new investigation, which will examine the firing of at least one U.S. attorney, missing White House e-mails, and White House efforts to keep presidential appointees attuned to Republican political priorities, could create a substantial new problem for the Bush White House.

Just another sign of an out-of-control, investigation-happy Democratic (oops, sorry, I mean "Democrat") Congress, right? Those damn Dems will stop at nothing to embarrass the White House!

Actually, no. The Democrats have nothing to do with it. The Office of Special Counsel is inside the administration. In fact, the man in charge, Scott J. Bloch, was appointed by the president himself. Ouch.

Bloch is promising the investigation will operate completely independently and "will not leave any stone unturned."

What do you bet right now Rove is trying to figure out how he can get Scott Bloch fired?

Previously on 'The Stump':
· The Bush Legacy? Incompetence
· Famed Scientists Challenge Karl Rove
· Remember 'As the Iraqis Stand Up, We Will Stand Down'??
· White House Backs Gonzales

Democrats around the nation have been seething since Al Gore lost in 2000. Now, thanks to a governor in the bluest of blue states, they have found a way to possibly help their fellow donks and destroy the intent of the our forefathers who wrote the Constitution:

Maryland officially became the first state on Tuesday to approve a plan to give its electoral votes for president to the winner of the national popular vote instead of the candidate chosen by state voters.

Gov. Martin O'Malley, a Democrat, signed the measure into law, one day after the state's General Assembly adjourned.

The measure would award Maryland's 10 electoral votes to the national popular vote winner. The plan would only take effect if states representing a majority of the nation's 538 electoral votes decided to make the same change.

Which means it will probably never take effect but the intent of Governor O'Mally is clear. Democrats have a hard time winning legally so they'll just push through legislation that would allow them to subvert the intent of those who created a document as great as the Constitution. It's kind of like passing a non-binding resolution against our troops funding during wartime, but what party in it's right mind would possible do that?

On the issue of global warming, the Bush Administration doth protest too much, methinks. If climate change is a big crock, as it maintains, science will bear that out, right? Then one must wonder why the White House works so very hard at suppressing scientific research from seeing the light of day. Oh yeah, it's because an overwhelming amount of research contradicts the White House line. ABC has the details of a damning new report out tomorrow:

Researchers for the non-profit watchdog Government Accountability Project reviewed thousands of e-mails, memos and other documents obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests and from government whistle-blowers and conducted dozens of interviews with public affairs staff, scientists, reporters and others.

The group says it has identified hundreds of instances where White House-appointed officials interfered with government scientists' efforts to convey their research findings to the public, at the behest of top administration officials.

In an ironic twist, in many cases these are scientists hired by the administration in the first place.

The White House went as far as to restrict scientists' ability to talk to lawmakers and journalists -- which, the report concludes, may violate federal laws protecting their right to speak. Expect the House Science Committee to take up the matter tomorrow.

As if being in the majority wasn't enough, Democrats have sought even more power by proposing legislation that would giving the District of Columbia a vote in the House. The White House says Bush would veto the bill if it reached his desk.

The White House on Tuesday threatened a presidential veto of legislation giving the District of Columbia a vote in the House, possibly prolonging a two-century-long wait for representation in Congress.

The bill, the White House said in a statement, violates constitutional language saying the House should be made up of representatives chosen by the people of the states. "The District of Columbia is not a state," it said, and if the legislation reaches President Bush's desk, "his senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill."

The House is to vote Friday on the legislation that would give a vote to the D.C. delegate while creating, until the 2010 census, a new at- large seat for Utah.

That would increase House membership to 437, with the seat from overwhelmingly Democratic D.C. offset by the extra vote from Utah, a predominantly Republican state. Utah narrowly missed obtaining a fourth House seat after the 2000 census.

The White House cites the Constitutions clear language that statehood is a requirement for voting rights, and to change that would require a Constitutional amendment.

This legislation, while only affecting the House, would likely be the predecessor to legislation proposing D.C. get a vote in the Senate, too -- which is likely the ultimate goal of the Democrats' plan... Two more liberal votes in the House would only have minimal impact in the long run. Two more Democrat votes in the Senate, however, would have a much bigger impact.

Here we are four years after the build-up and subsequent invasion of Iraq. First things first, the actual invasion and capture of Baghdad were a sight to behold. No military operation has ever been conducted as efficiently and expeditiously as the full-speed end-around utilized to take the Iraqi capital. Our armed forces deserve major credit for an exceptionally planned and orchestrated operation. That has been lost in the din that has surrounded this war from the beginning.

Now, on to the meat of the post, what has gone right, what went wrong, and the outright lies about both.

Lie #1: Bush lied us into war.

This is the most invidious and carefully crafted lie from the political left. Let's look back to late 2002 and remember exactly how events transpired.

President Bush went to Congress and asked for permission to use force. The majority agreed including John Edwards, Hillary Clinton and myriad others who are using the Bush lied canard nowadays. The actual truth is that Hillary, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Bill Clinton, Robert Byrd, Al Gore, Henry Waxman and Madeline Albright all agreed that Saddam had WMD and planned on using them. If Bush lied us into war, the above group gave him a major assist.

The Democrats forced Bush to follow the tedious course of presenting the case to the UN, which forced us to hold off and gave Saddam ample time to send his stockpiles to Syria and Iran (yes, Iran, where he sent his planes during the first Gulf War.) Put quite simply, the Democrats insistence that we cowtow to the UN may have actually harmed us by dispersing the weapons throughout the region.

In any case, Bill Clinton used the WMD reason to attack Iraq during the impeachment trial. I could hardly imagine that Saddam just disposed of them in the succeeding four years.

First, let's do a brief review of how the Justice Dept is supposed to work. It has a dual charge. To be the government's lawyer but also be the place that, in most cases, keeps the government clean. Unless there's a conflict of interest and an outside counsel is appointed to investigate a mess (like Patrick Fitzgerald), the Justice Dept is supposed to be "Mr. Clean." The 93 AG's are important people and they are political appointees (appointed by the president) but they are most often experienced prosecutors. Yes, incoming presidents will appoint their "team" but rarely will they make lots of changes during a term.

The difference here is the changes were made for political reasons and then they 'mis-led' lied about it. The difference here is that once again we see a government malfunctioning because the principle architects of this presidency (apparently Cheney and Rove) don't give a damn about the Constitution, duties and responsibilities, or morality. In fact, when the 'mistakes' lies were coming to light, several Republicans could not understand what the fuss was about. They're so tied into the Imperial presidency concept that another scandal involving politics where it shouldn't be confuses them.

What's interesting about this mess is the Bush loyalist who is supposed to take the fall (Gonzo's chief of staff Kyle Sampson) is making noises about not going quietly. Why? Because he doesn't think he did anything wrong even though he was forced to resign. He had been touted as Rove's heir apparent and he doesn't want to lose that title. Why? Because, like Rove, he believes anything is OK as long as you win an election. Anything. Wiretapping opponents? OK. Massive trolling surveillance of Americans? OK. Investigations of office holders based on innuendo? OK. Having Senators and Congressional Reps call the district AGs about current investigations. OK.

Let me give but one example of what kind of rats we have running things. Before Rove had a reputation, when he was first getting involved in campaigns he was in Chicago for a DA's race (irony). He walked into the Democratic campaign office, pretended to be a volunteer and apparently took a lot of campaign stationary with him. Shortly thereafter, fliers printed on the stationary turned up in areas where homeless, drunks, and prostitutes gathered promising free food and booze at the Dem HQ. The tatic didn't work but it speaks volumes. Worst. president. Ever.

More reading: Sampson investigative reporting Rove Justice Dept Rove