From the opposite side of the coin... As to Ted Stevens being reelected under the same conditions, that seems an open question to me. Certainly, with the charges hanging over his head the probably wouldn't have been re-elected. But with those charges having been removed? Who knows?

Say what you will about Stevens, I'll likley agree with you. Still....It's within the law, though. By comparison, let's say the charges against Blago are dropped. Does anyone suppose he wouldn't be running again? He'd stand a fair chance of winning, too.

I live in Illinois and I would bet the farm that Blago wouldn't have a chance..

I'm sorry, but this makes no sense, Stormy. How is it that this is a "Democratic Party hit?" I seem to recall the Bush DOJ being in charge for the last 8 years.

So, when the administration changes, the political loyalties of the lower and mid level DOJ employees also changes?

Sorry, no sale.

And how did Begich do anything approaching the realm of being responsible for this, again?

Begich ran both implicitly and overtly on the idea that Stevens was up on charges. Since the charges were dropped, it cuts the legs out of Begich's platform.

As I say, you can say what you will on Stevens, I'll likely agree. But if we're to stick to the letter and not the intent, as Democrats so often do..(The Iowa marriage ruling today, as an example) I suggest a case can in fact be made.

This story pretty much sums up the insanity of the age we live in. There's finally actual proof of justice being politicized when Bush was President and it turns out to be a Democratic Party hit on a Republican.

I'm sorry, but this makes no sense, Stormy. How is it that this is a "Democratic Party hit?" I seem to recall the Bush DOJ being in charge for the last 8 years.

Uh, I didn't say that, someone named andrew did...

Please, I get in enough problems for things I actually say. ;>

Likewise, no one is suggesting he shouldn't be allowed to run in the next election. However, whether we should want him to win again is another question entirely. Any Republican who wants Ted Stevens back is not a serious supporter of limited government.

I often come across times like this when I'm not sure if the Leftist I"m talking to is lying or just dumb.

"And as far as "finally proof" of justice "being politicized," apparently you've forgotten about that whole Siegleman affair, or those "military tribunals" instituted by the Bush Admin. How is it that all that turmoil in the Bush DOJ regarding fired AGs, Monica Goodling et al is a yawner to you, but suddenly the Stevens thing is whole cause for outrage--and fake outrage at that?"

The difference is that this is a real scandal. And as for fake outrage look in the mirror. Here's a case of actual gross violations of justice (no doubt about it) and you're not outraged in the least.

I see what you are saying but we are innocent until proven guilty. Steven's may not deserve to return to the senate but a fair election should determine that. Personally I wouldn't have voted for him even without the prosecution but I'm not Alaskan. I'm not insulting anyone intelligence but advocating for a fair election contest. It's one of the foundations of a representative democracy.

This story pretty much sums up the insanity of the age we live in. There's finally actual proof of justice being politicized when Bush was President and it turns out to be a Democratic Party hit on a Republican.

I'm sorry, but this makes no sense, Stormy. How is it that this is a "Democratic Party hit?" I seem to recall the Bush DOJ being in charge for the last 8 years.

And as far as "finally proof" of justice "being politicized," apparently you've forgotten about that whole Siegleman affair, or those "military tribunals" instituted by the Bush Admin. How is it that all that turmoil in the Bush DOJ regarding fired AGs, Monica Goodling et al is a yawner to you, but suddenly the Stevens thing is whole cause for outrage--and fake outrage at that?

Stormy, Please explain how this is opposed to limited government or principled leadership? Appealing to a person's sense of honor and calling for a new election seems okay to me. Nobody is calling for legislation forcing such an election.

1. Stevens case is being dropped because of prosecutorial misconduct. That doesn't mean that he's innocent of the charges against him.

2. Even if what Stevens did was legal, accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars in gifts from people with business before the Senate is not behavior we should tolerate in our public officials.

3. Even if we put that aside, anyone who claims to believe in limited government while simultaneously pining for the King of Government Waste's return to the Senate is insulting my intelligence.

Remember the news agencies who went and did a forensic recount and came up with Bush winning in all scenarios? And I don't recall Coleman assassinating his opponent.

I was more referring to the butterfly ballot scenario, or regretful Nader voters, which would be more analogous to the present scenario.

And how did Begich do anything approaching the realm of being responsible for this, again?

Stormy, Please explain how this is opposed to limited government or principled leadership? Appealing to a person's sense of honor and calling for a new election seems okay to me. Nobody is calling for legislation forcing such an election.