For anyone who follows politics, 2006 was a highly entertaining and eventful year, regardless of your ideology. It started out with Vice President Cheney accidentally shooting a hunting partner and is ending with the possible execution of Saddam Hussein.

Below are the stories I think were the most important in the political world this year, feel free to add what you thought in the comments.

10. The population in America passes 300-million

America passed the 300-million plateau in October. The political aspect of this is where they are living and moving. There's an exodus from the northeastern US and California due to reasons such as cost of living and tax rates. The population is moving south into states such as North Carolina and Arizona. These states are currently "red" states and voted for President Bush in both elections. The influx of new citizens may mean that come the 2010 census, these states will gain congressional seats. My blogthren Nix Guy commented on this here and I did here.

9. Racism and the election cycle

Is the word "macaca" racist? What about an ad that satirizes a black candidate and features a white "playmate" saying to the candidate "Harold, call me"? What about calling a black candidate for Senator in Virginia "slavish"? Election year 2006 saw all that and more. George Allen started the year as a possible Presidential candidate and ended it out of a job. Harold Ford, Jr. was known as a ladies man and his opponent played on that. Ford, Jr. lost his election. Michael Steele ran a good campaign yet failed to win. A Democratic leader was quoted as saying that Steele "slavishly" supports the Republican Party.

8. Corruption in Congress

In March, Randy "Duke" Cunningham of San Diego County was sentence to jail for pay-to-play actions while in the House. Lobbyist Jack Abramoff was sentenced in that same month to nearly 6-years for his part in an Indian gaming scam. He was the face of "K Street" and a big player who worked with Republicans and Democrats alike. Democratic Congressman William Jefferson (LA) was shown to have hidden $90,000 dollars in his home freezer. He was subsequently reelected. And finally, soon to be Majority Leader Harry Reid and rising star Barack Obama were both reported to have played fast and loose with some real estate transactions.

One of the most comical things that came up during Monica Goodling's testimony of the Hill was the uproar over her vetting practices in reviewing Justice Department job applications. Goodling stated that she may have gone a bit too far in determining applicants' political loyalties. The Left quickly turned that into the story, even suggested here at our esteemed blog, that Goodling admitted to breaking the law. Both statements are demonstrably false. No law was broken, and rewarding politically loyal job applicants has a long pedigree. One of the best at doing this, of course, was the Clinton administration. According to the American Spectator:

"We knew the political affiliation of every lawyer and political appointee we hired at the Department of Justice from January 1993 to the end of the Administration," says a former Clinton Department of Justice political appointee. "We kept charts and used them when it came time for new U.S. Attorney nominations, detailee assignments, and other hiring decisions. If you didn't vote Democrat, you weren't going anywhere with us. It was that simple."

In fact, according to this source, at least 25 career DOJ lawyers who were identified as Republicans were shifted away from jobs in offices they held prior to January 1993 and were given new "assignments" which were deemed "noncritical" or "nonpolitically influential." When these jobs shifts came to light in 1993, neither the House nor Senate Judiciary committees chose to pursue an investigation.

The 103rd Congress in 1993 was controlled by the Democrats in both Houses. Even after the Republican takeover in 1994, Congress never chose to investigate this issue -- because there was nothing of substance there. Same as today.

Nope, I'm not making the of this post up. That's a quote from Senator Jack Reed from July 9, 2006 and is posted on his Senate Web site under the title No political timetable for Iraq. Here's the full quote:

We do not need an artificial timetable for Iraq, especially not a political one, but we do need a plan from the White House on how and when we can succeed.

Well, Senators Reed and Carl Levin proposed an artificial timetable for Iraq today, just two weeks after the surge plan that my very own Senator Reed requested was put into place. Their deadline? April 30, 2008. Their reasoning? Iraq has not met the political timetable that Reed thought was a bad idea just one year ago.

Here's the report on The Politico about Reed's "Reduction and Transition" amendment. It appears as if combat troops will be kept in Iraq past the aforementioned date, but how many is unclear. It also has an out for Democrats who dread being called "soft" on national security. According to the article, combat troops remaining in Iraq can be used for anti-terrorist missions. As all of the combat forces now in Iraq are used for anti-terrorism missions when they aren't resting, just what does this amendment change? Are we supposed to get only the support troops out by next May? If so, then how do the combat troops get resupplied? It doesn't make any sense.

I tried to find the text of the amendment for answers but it's not up on Thomas yet -- although I did find out that yesterday the Senate named July 2007 as "National Watermelon Month." Well, thank God they're doing one thing that isn't hurting national security. Although watermelons do look like bombs...

Books and politics do not generally seem to go together. Politics is high-paced; books are decidedly low-key. Yet, nothing has become more popular for the two to be intermixed, and almost every single presidential aspirant has a recent book out or will soon. Politicians struggle with trying to balance the need for dramatic material with the risk of potential politically damaging material. One common technique is for a politician to focus on the work of others, so as to limit personal revelations, and emphasis a broad and universally acceptable theme like hard work, making a the right decision, or believing in core values. For example, take the GOP front-runner John McCain:

John McCain and his long-time administrative assistant, Mark Salter, will spend part of the Christmas holiday completing a non-fiction book, their fifth, timed for a late August 2007 release. The book's working title is "Hard Call," and it explores what Salter calls "historically significant decisions, not just political and military but from many other endeavors, like business, medicine and science.

Obama, of course, already has his book on the market. Some others include:

McCain and Giuliani have cancelled their schedules for tomorrow and I expect others to follow suit if they haven't already. The Edwards campaign has a new front page.

This is an appropriate response as the usual politics will grind to a halt over the next few days. At this moment the gunman has not been identified, but might be a 24-year-old Chinese man who is also a recent immigrant. Still waiting confirmation on that.

I'm not going to push the usual political buttons on this. Yes there are some points that could be made, but I think the more important reality is that it could have been a bombs or plane hijackings as well as guns. We've seen it all and know that evil finds a way. Politicians and the media can help most by just getting us the facts without any political overtones. Who did it and why? Were there any warning signs? Could anything have been done?

If you're not helping to answer questions like this, it's probably best to stand to the side.

Victims Identified So Far

Yesterday, recently re-elected Durham, NC District Attorney Mike Nifong dropped the rape charges against three Duke University Lacrosse players. The players were accused of the rape of a stripper who was paid to perform at a party. Several other charges remain, although for what reason is not known.

In the initial days after the charges were brought, the media in America tried and convicted the players and the bulk of Americans agreed. Then things started to fall apart. DNA samples showed that although the accuser had sex that night with several men (five is the general number given), none was the players. A complete run-down of the case is here.

Why bring this up on a political blog, you may ask, simply because the District Attorney used this case to win re-election and thus it was not only a racial case since the accuser is black and the players are white, it became highly political.

John Fund of the Wall Street Journal points us to the website of the Center for Responsive Politics, Opensecrets.org, for recently updated figures on political donations to the Democrats and the Republicans. For all of the complaints about money corrupting politics, we find that the biggest historical donors to political campaigns are unions - and virtually all of their money goes to Democrats. In fact, of the top 20 donors to political parties since 1989, fifteen are considered exclusively Democrat donors, two are considered Republican donors, and three spread their funds evenly. Of those fifteen Democrat donors, eleven are unions.

Sort of explains the upcoming Democrat payback to the unions - passage of a bill to use the power of the federal government to limit secret union organizing votes. Makes it easier for union thugs to target employees who vote against them for 'retaliation' - which is a tactic that apparently pleases the Dems...

As most of the world knows, Senator Barack Obama announced today that he is forming an exploratory committee -- the first formal step in declaring his candidacy for President in 2008. I have been loosely following the Senator since his speech at the Democratic Convention in 2004. He is a fascinating phenomenon at the very least. There has been an enormous amount of commentary about him, especially in the last year as it became apparent that he was considering a run for president, with people trying to figure out who he is and what he stands for....I think we are about to find out.

The reason I enjoy listening to the Senator speak about anything is that he makes me feel good, about Americans and our country, about the future. There are a lot of people trying to compartmentalize him and categorize him and I don't think it's going to be that easy. He is obviously very intelligent, an excellent public speaker and charismatic. With the horrible, hateful state of politics in this country -- after six years of divisive, wedge-issue politics -- I think this man speaks to the best in all of us and that will be a very difficult effect to counter.

He says it's the "smallness of our politics that most bothers him...our leaders in Washington seem incapable of working together in a practical, common-sense way. Politics has become so bitter and partisan and gummed up by money and influence that we can't tackle the big problems that demand solutions, and that's what we have to change."

Check out his announcement video at www.barackobama.com. Feel good for today.

With the last three days of the Major League Baseball season upon us, I've thought of how a baseball season is akin to a political race. Being it's a Friday and everything should be lighter on a Friday, let's look at this more closely.

A campaign, like the 162-game major league season is a marathon, not a sprint, a bad day in a campaign can be overcome the next day or week by a good showing and a mistake today could back and haunt a candidate in the crucial final weeks. Some candidates go out to an early lead and cruise winning two out of three games every series while some teams lead for the entire race and all of a sudden find themselves tied with one series left and momentum going against them.

Fresh off the heels of Mitt Romney's off-mic dust up with conservative talk radio host Jan Mickelson, in which the former governor advocated a separation between church and state, Rudy Giuliani has come out with a similar message: Religious beliefs are a personal matter, and should not be focused on when deciding who we vote for. Campaigning in Iowa, Rudy fended off questions from an audience that wanted to know more about the role his Catholic faith would play in his decision-making if elected president. And Giuliani wasn't having any of it:

"That's a matter of individual conscience," Giuliani said. "I don't think that there should be a religious test for public office."

This, of course, is not what so many on the right would like to hear. For years now, they've been led to believe the opposite. The Dobsons and Falwells and Robertsons have done their best to obliterate such a distinction between public and private views. Church and State have never been separate in America, they declare. So can we trust Giuliani or Romney on this issue given their aggressive courting of the very constituency that so reviles the notion of a disconnect between faith and politics?

It's funny that in the interview with Mickelson, Romney bragged about his record as governor of Massachusetts, essentially saying that even though he'd identified himself as a pro-choice candidate, once in office he turned decidedly pro-life. So should voters anticipate another bait and switch?

As for Rudy, I'm inclined to believe he really doesn't want faith to play a major role in politics, despite his promise to nominate "strict-constructionist" justices to the high court.

It really doesn't matter what you think of Kerry's "botched joke" or whatever it was. For background, see Pat Casey's excellent posts here or here. Regardless of what he meant to do, the plain meaning of his words insulted the troops. And whether you buy Kerry's excuse or not, there are certain political realities that cannot be disputed.

1. Kerry just re-energized the GOP base. The base despises Kerry, mainly because of the 2004 election, but Kerry represents everything that the GOP base detests about Democrats. They see Kerry as an elite, wealthy liberal arrogant snob from the northeast. Kerry just reminded them why they vote Republican.

2. Kerry also ticked off everyone in the military or who has a family member in the military. Military folks are a tad sensitive about the "stupid" issue because a: It isn't true and b: lots of ignorant folks (read: Democrats and the media) think that it is. All of these folks are now reminded about why they usually vote R.

3. Independents, bless their little hearts, hate the harsh rhetoric that both parties direct toward each other. By engaging in this harshness on behalf of the Democrats, Kerry either pushes independents toward the GOP or disengages them altogether.

Tim Hardaway's recent anti-gay remarks, and NBA commissioner David Stern's response, could have far-reaching implications for our country.

This controversy began last week, when former NBA player John Amaechi announced that he is gay. Hardaway, also a former NBA player, reacted on a radio talk show. He said, "I hate gay people," adding, "I'm homophobic. I don't like it. It shouldn't be in the world or in the United States." Stern subsequently banned Hardaway from participating in All-Star Game festivities this weekend.

The NBA is a major cultural institution in this country -- last year's NBA Finals claimed a total viewership of 13 million – and Stern's response to Hardaway is moving the national debate on gays further toward tolerance. With an organization as nationally significant as the NBA taking a pro-gay position, it may signal an end to the days when overt hostility to gays was politically permitted -- from former Sen. Rick Santorum's statement that "I have no problem with homosexuality ... I have a problem with homosexual acts" to presidential candidate Mitt Romney's recent battles against gay marriage.

I'm a supporter of the president because he gets it when it comes to the War on Terror. We are facing an enemy that will not quit until they accomplish their much-stated goals. That doesn't mean I believe everything the president does is correct.

This week, the media and Senate Democrats, led by the camera-hogging Chuck Schumer, started a scandal that isn't. They accused the president of replacing several U.S. Attorney's to forestall or end investigations. The fact that the president reserves the right to fire these people at will is beside the point. The fact that the charge is patently false is the point. The fact that Bill Clinton fired 93 attorneys to get them off the cases of Dan Rostenkowski and themselves is definitely the point as well.

How did Bush choose to handle this situation? He trudged Alberto Gonzalez out in front of the media and had him issue an apology that was not only unnecessary, but served to increase scrutiny. This is a hallmark of the Bush White House. He will let Pelosi and Schumer win a political battle that never should have begun. The donks get the scalp, Bush looks shady. Win-win for the Dems, poor perception for the GOP.

Yesterday, it was reported that on October 10, the IRS commissioner, Mark Everson, told his people to delay tax enforcement in areas affected by Hurricane Katrina -- until after the midterm elections and the holiday season. He said that a pre-election reprieve was as routine as the Christmastime hiatus -- which turns out not to be the case.

In delaying the enforcement actions, there's no avoiding the appearance of a political motivation. Many voters in the devastated areas are bound to be angry at President Bush and, by extension, the Republicans. By easing up now, the I.R.S. avoids stoking that anger.

Mr. Everson has been accused before of wielding his power in ways to please his boss, President Bush. Although the administration has failed repeatedly to eliminate the estate tax, the IRS eliminated the jobs of nearly one half of the agency's lawyers who audit estate tax returns. He said the employees were no longer needed, but would not release the information for researchers to verify that statement. Smells like cow dung to me. (For the record, I support repeal of the estate tax.)

This falls into the same category as refusing to enforce environmental laws and/or refusing to defend cases brought against the Clinton administration by pro-business groups -- more than one avenue to get your way I guess.

You have to admire how the GOP/Karl Rove et al are approaching this election from every conceivable angle. Kind of a holistic approach. Too bad so much of it is unethical. These are the people running our country. All perception and no substance

Most Americans would agree that a candidate's character and actions matter more than what race or gender he or she happens to be. This might help explain why there's no uproar over the fact that the Republican party has so far put forth 10 white guys from which to choose a presidential candidate. Of the eight Democrats who appeared in the first debate, the country saw a slightly more representative demographic sampling, with a noticeable shortage of women and Asians (who make up roughly 4.3% of the population). What with the fact that women continue to far outpace men in terms of earning college degrees, however, we should start to see more and more female candidates in the near future.

The only Hispanic running for president in 2008 is Bill Richardson. So far, his campaign has been centered squarely on the question of competence and experience, and in the process, he has produced the season's best political ad. In other words, he had chosen to highlight his deeds rather than his ethnicity. Until now, that is:

It's no accident that he [Richardson] chose Los Angeles as the place where he'll announce officially today that he's seeking the presidency. "I'm not running as a Hispanic candidate, but I'm trying to convince Hispanics that I am Hispanic, and they don't know," he told The Post during a swing through Washington past week. "I go to Los Angeles, they don't know I'm Hispanic. When they know, it's a positive. So it's a question of building that."

Smart move. After all, according to the US Census Bureau, more than 35% of California's 36-million-plus residents are Hispanics. That's more than all the other racial groups who reside in the Golden State combined. And seeing as the state recently moved its primary up to February 5, that puts a lot of importance on courting the Hispanic vote. So will the act of highlighting Richardson's ancestral lineage help his chances in the primary? Well, it won't hurt.