Via the BBC: Farc ‘co-ordinator’ held in Spain

Spanish police say they have arrested the representative of the left-wing Colombian rebel group Farc in Spain.

Maria Remedios Garcia Albert, a Spanish national, was detained near Madrid, as part of a joint operation by the Spanish and Colombian authorities.

[...]

It is claimed that Ms Garcia helped co-ordinate the group’s wider activities in Europe – allegedly liaising with counterparts in Switzerland and Sweden.

It is possible that Garcia was tracked down from information captured from the laptop of Raúl Reyes, who was killed in combat in March. The avalanche of woes that have been visited upon the FARC in the last year or so has been remarkable.

The most recent example was the highly publicized rescue of Ingrid Betancourt and 14 other hostages (including three Americans). Not only were Betancourt and the three Americans perhaps the most valuable assets that the FARC had, the rescue operation utterly embarrassed them.

Additionally there has been the following:

• The death of the FARC’s founder, Ivan Marulanda.
• The surrender of top level leader Karina.
• The capture of another top leader, Santiago.
• The aforementioned death of Reyes in the raid over the Colombian-Ecuador border that sparked off a diplomatic row in the region (and Ecuador still remains hacked off at Colombia). The raid that killed Reyes led to acquisition of the aforementioned laptop.
• The death of Ivan Rios at the hands of a reward-seeking fellow member of the FARC, who had been (like Reyes) a member of the FARC’s seven-man secretariat. He was Karina’s immediate boss and his death appears to have set off a chain of events that led to her surrender.

A casual perusal of that list would lead one to believe that the FARC must be on its last legs and while I would like to think that as well, I remain cautious in rendering any conclusions at this point in time. It should be noted that the FARC has been in constant operation since the mid-1960s and has been, to use a word, resilient. At the moment they exist in a number of cells across the country, which makes direct destruction difficult (indeed, it was the fragmented nature of the group that the Colombian government exploited in its rescue of Betancourt). Further, their participation in the cocaine trade gives them a remarkable revenue source. As such, while the FARC has clearly been reduced in size, it is easy to see them continuing their operations for the foreseeable future, if anything because the money is available for them to do so.

There is the chance that there will be some internal divisions with the group, as the more ideologically oriented portions seek to continue armed struggle (it is thought that the current leader whose nom de guerre is El Mono Jojoy is more ideologically minded than some of the commanders) and those who simply want to pursue their criminal activities. Indeed, there are reports that some FARC fronts have teamed up with right-wing paramilitary groups (their alleged enemies) to engage in drug related activities.

There is no doubt that the armed conflict is evolving at the moment, and that the Colombian state is making strides, but I would caution against any assumptions that we are on the verge of violence ceasing. There is still the question of the ELN (the National Liberation Army, Colombia’s second largest guerrilla group) and the paramilitaries. In fact, I fear that as long at there is money to be made from drugs that there will be some sort of serious violence problem in Colombia.

The daring rescue of Ingrid Betancourt from FARC terrorists misused the Red Cross symbol in violation of the Geneva Conventions.

A member of the military mission that tricked Colombian rebels into freeing 15 hostages wore the insignia of the International Red Cross during the operation, President Alvaro Uribe said Wednesday.

Mr. Uribe said his government had apologized to the Red Cross for the incident, which he called an unauthorized error by a nervous soldier. “An officer mistakenly and contrary to orders … put a piece of cloth on his vest that carried the symbol of the International Committee of the Red Cross,” Mr. Uribe said in a speech in Bogota.

A fleeting image of a portion of the cloth is visible in video taken of the operation by an agent posing as a cameraman that was officially released.

Use of the Red Cross symbol in such a military operation would appear to violate the Geneva Conventions that protect the relief organization’s reputation for neutrality in conflicts.

There’s no “appear” to it.

One hesitates to overstate matters given the stakes involved.  The rescue of these hostages is an unmitigated good.   Further, I believe Uribe when he says it was done contrary to orders.

Still, this is a serious matter.   Having soldiers pose as relief workers or journalists is illegal because, otherwise, no one would recognize the sanctity of those people and they would be in danger.  Using the Red Cross is particularly egregious because it could deny captured soldiers and their families the benefits of visits to ensure humane treatment.

Recall Clara Barton’s words from 1878:

A confederation of Relief Societies in different countries, acting under the Geneva Convention, carries on its work under the sign of the Red Cross. The aim of these societies is to ameliorate the condition of wounded soldiers in the armies in campaign on land or sea, and to furnish relief in cases of great national calamity.

The societies had their rise in the conviction of certain philanthropic men, that the official sanitary service in wars is usually insufficient, and that the charity of the people, which at such times exhibits itself munificently, should be organized for the best possible utilization. An International Public Conference was called at Geneva, Switzerland, in 1863, which, though it had not an official character, brought together representatives from a number of governments. At this conference a treaty was drawn up, afterwards remodeled and improved, which twenty-five governments have signed.

The treaty provides for the neutrality of all sanitary supplies, ambulances, surgeons, nurses, attendants, and the sick or wounded men, and their safe conduct, when they bear the sign of the organization, viz: the Red Cross.

This only works if people trust that only legitimate relief workers seek sanctuary behind the Red Cross symbol.

Woodrow Wilson Red Cross Poster:  Sparacus Education:  Red Cross

Íngrid Betancourt Pulecio was freed yesterday in a daring rescue by the Colombian National Army after more than five years of captivity by FARC narco-terrorists.

[S]he and 14 other hostages — including three U.S. military contractors held since 2003 — were airlifted to freedom in an audaciously “perfect” operation involving military spies who tricked the rebels into handing over their prize hostages without firing a shot.

The stunning caper involved months of intelligence gathering, dozens of helicopters on standby and a strong dose of deceit: The rebels shoved the captives, their hands bound, onto a white unmarked MI-17 helicopter, believing they were being transferred to another guerrilla camp.

Looking at helicopter’s crew, some wearing Che Guevara shirts, Betancourt reasoned they weren’t aid workers, as she’d expected — but rebels. This was just another indignity — the helicopter “had no flag, no insignia.” Angry and upset, she refused a coat they offered as they told her she was going to a colder climate. But not long after the group was airborne, Betancourt turned around and saw the local commander, alias Cesar, a man who had tormented her for four years, blindfolded and stripped naked on the floor.

Then came the unbelievable words. “We’re the national army,” said one of the crewman. “You’re free.”

The helicopter crew were soldiers in disguise. Cesar and the other guerrilla aboard had been persuaded to hand over their pistols, then overpowered. Not a single shot was fired in Wednesday’s rescue mission, which snatched from the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, the four foreigners who were its greatest bargaining chips.

“The helicopter almost fell from the sky because we were jumping up and down, yelling, crying, hugging one another,” Betancourt later said.

The operation, which also freed 11 Colombian soldiers and police, “will go into history for its audacity and effectiveness,” Defense Minister Juan Manuel Santos said. It was the most serious blow ever dealt to the 44-year-old FARC, which is already reeling from the recent deaths of key commanders and thousands of defections after withering pressure from Colombia’s U.S.-trained and advised armed forces.

Military intelligence agents had infiltrated the FARC’s top ranks — not one but many — in an operation that began last year and developed slowly and with meticulous care, Colombia’s top generals said.

Amazingly good news. Steven Taylor, who studies Colombian politics for a living, has roundups here and here.

Here’s a follow-up to a story I noted yesterday: (via the BBC), Ecuadorean death report confirmed

Colombia has confirmed that an Ecuadorean was killed when its troops attacked a rebel camp inside the neighbouring state three weeks ago.

Defence Minister Juan Manuel Santos said his body was taken to Colombia after the raid along with that of top leftist Colombian rebel Raul Reyes.

[...]

News that Bogota has confirmed killing an Ecuadorean threatens to plunge the two countries back into diplomatic crisis, and perhaps again put the entire Andean region on a war footing, the BBC’s Jeremy McDermott reports from Colombia.

Confirming that an Ecuadorean citizen had been killed, Colombia’s defence ministry said the dead man appeared to have been a member of the Farc who specialised in helping rebels cross into Ecuador to hide.

At a minimum, this will increase tensions with Ecuador and allow President Correa a reason to continue to desist from reestablishing diplomatic relations with Colombia. No doubt the next step will be for Ecuador to dispute the role of the dead Ecuadoran.

Via the BBC: Ecuador warns Colombia over raid

Ecuador President Rafael Correa has warned of diplomatic tension if an Ecuadorean is found among the victims of a Colombian raid inside Ecuador.

Mr Correa said Ecuador would not forgive the murder of Franklin Aisalia, if he had indeed died during the raid on Farc rebels inside Ecuador.

But he said he hoped Colombia would prove this was not the case.

Ecuador has ordered a probe after the man’s family said he died in the raid in which a senior Farc boss was killed.

[...]

“It would be extremely grave if it is proven that a Ecuadorean died,” the president said on Ecuadorean radio. “We will not let this murder go unpunished.”

Correa left the meeting in Santo Domingo over the entire affair with an obvious reluctance to move on. It may well be that the the Aisalia situation is an excuse to find a way to continue to confrontation. However, if the Colombians killed an innocent Ecuadoran that would reignite the crisis in a new guise. At a minimum, it is clear that relations between these two Andean states are hardly warm at the moment.

The Democratic National Committee is trying to work out a means for Florida and Michigan to stage delegate selection contests within the rules but there has thus far been no plan that’s acceptable to the states and both campaigns. Meanwhile, some supporters of Hillary Clinton are arguing that the DNC should simply seat the delegates from the previous round of “voting,” despite no alternative candidates on the ballot in Michigan and a pledge by the candidates not to campaign in Florida.

Jeralyn Merritt contends that it’s not Clinton’s fault that Barack Obama and the other candidates took their names off the ballot in Michigan, since it wasn’t technically required by their pledge, and that said pledge never specifically said the delegates wouldn’t count.

The exclusion of Michigan and Florida was a penalty imposed by the DNC. In my view, it was an unfair one and should be lifted. The votes should count as is, the delegates should be awarded and seated.

Big Tent Democrat favors a re-vote of some sort. Hillary appears not to be opposed if that is the will of the party. The party appears to be leaning towards a mail-in revote. When will Obama get on board?

Publius, rightly in my view, says this is “simply legalistic parsing” that ignores the spirit and context of the agreement. He’s willing to accept any outcome and support the winner “so long as the ending is legitimate – i.e., is consistent with ex ante rules.”

For instance, let’s say that Obama holds a majority in elected delegates (and popular vote), but Clinton pulls it out with superdelegates. I won’t like that, but that’s a perfectly legitimate result. The ex ante rules (however silly they may be) incorporate superdelegates, so I’m not going to march off sullenly if Clinton wins through rules that everyone agreed to going in. In fact, I’m going to go out and work for her.

At the same time, however, I would not accept a Clinton victory that depended on seating the Michigan and Florida delegates (assuming no re-vote, etc.). That’s breaking the rules, pure and simple, and the Clinton campaign should understand in no uncertain terms that the “nuclear strategy” will drive away supporters for the fall and leave lasting damage.

Meanwhile, Al Sharpton is jumping into the fray, providing further evidence that George Will’s famous quip that “Nowadays no diplomatic farce is complete without a cameo appearance by Jesse Jackson” is desperately in need of an Al Sharpton corollary.

Laying the groundwork for a court battle that could divide the Democratic Party, the Reverend Al Sharpton is threatening to sue the Democratic National Committee if it counts Florida’s primary results in the official presidential delegates tally.

Rev. Sharpton is traveling to Florida today to compile lists of residents who skipped the January contest because they thought their votes would not count. He plans to have those residents sign affidavits saying they would be disenfranchised by the seating of the Florida delegation, in the event the Democratic Party allowed that to happen.

Just as a stopped clock is right twice a day, Sharpton would seem here to have a solid argument. Whether he has standing to sue is another question, of course, but it’s hard to argue that the dynamics of the race would not have been radically different had Obama been campaigning and the potential participants under the impression that showing up to vote actually mattered.

Fortunately for Clinton, two of her more prominent backers are making an offer that’s going to be hard for the other parties to refuse: A revote paid for with someone else’s dime.

Gov. Jon S. Corzine of New Jersey and Gov. Edward G. Rendell of Pennsylvania said Sunday that they would be willing to raise half the $30 million it would take to run new contests in those two states. Mr. Corzine and Mr. Rendell submitted their proposal to The Washington Post.

The two governors argue that the Democratic National Committee, and not taxpayers in Florida and Michigan, should pay for a re-election in those states.

Democrats have been struggling to find a way to seat the delegates from Michigan and Florida, who were excluded when those states held primaries in January, violating national party rules.

If someone comes up with a way to raise the other $15 million — and, frankly, it’s not clear to me that the Clinton and Obama camps couldn’t simply pitch in the money themselves — this could have some legs. Howard Dean has, rightly, said that the DNC is not going to pay to run these elections; after all, the states violated the rules with full knowledge that they were doing so. But the taxpayers of those states aren’t going to be willing to pay more money to stage Democratic Party elections, either. Outside financing would seem to be the only solution.

Publius’ main point, though, is the bottom line: The rules must be observed. Simply handing the delegates to Clinton based on sham races would be a travesty. But disenfranchising two of the most populous states in the country as punishment for the gamesmanship of their political leaders won’t do, either.

Sarah Laitner has an interesting piece in today’s Financial Times about the Balkanization of Belgium.

Belgium, divided between Flanders, its wealthy Dutch-speaking north, and francophone Wallonia in the south, has chugged along without a new federal government for a record 165 days. Since elections in June, the bickering parties in a centre-right would-be coalition have failed to form an administration.

The main dispute is over calls by the Flemish majority for more self-rule. The wrangling across the language divide has renewed concerns that the country might break up along its linguistic fault lines.

Who cares? So far, the impasse has barely affected ordinary Belgians. To foreigners who lampoon the country and pass through it to reach its bigger neighbours, the scrap is arcane. The fact that Yves Leterme, prime minister designate, last year branded Belgium an accident of history and a facetious citizen tried recently to sell the country on Ebay only added to a sense of farce.

But the travails highlight fears that a tradition of compromise underpinning Belgium’s complex political system is fraying. In parts of the EU, the public identifies more and more with its region. As a result, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have secured more powers within the UK and new authorities have been conferred to Spanish, Italian and French local levels. Montenegro declared independence last year and the next addition to Europe’s list of micro-states may be Kosovo.

A Belgian official says: “In a lot of EU member states there is alienation towards the Union and national governments, because people think that the decision-making has become too complex.” He adds: “We will have a general movement in countries, giving more power to local and regional authorities. In that way, Belgium is a laboratory for what’s to come.”

Belgium, which provides the European Union with its capital, has survived while other patchwork countries such as Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union have bitten the dust. However, Caroline Sägesser, analyst at Crisp, a Brussels-based centre for sociopolitical research, says: “Government-forming talks are often lengthy in Belgium. But the fact that these negotiations are so long shows that it is becoming increasingly difficult to reach a compromise after each federal election.”

Much more in the piece, which I commend to you.

What’s particularly interesting is that this is happening in the place where Europe’s two great institutions, the EU and NATO, make their home. The reality, though, is that the move toward “Europe” makes “Belgium” much less necessary as a construct.

“Balkanization” is generally considered a bad thing, since countries that are too small have difficulty sustaining themselves. But there’s not much reason for culturally and linguistically divided regions to share local sovereignty while delegating economic, foreign affairs, and military sovereignty to multinational entities.

(Presumably, this will have no impact on the production of superb blonde and Wit beers. Otherwise, I’ll have to reconsider my position.)

via OTB News

Second image courtesy FT Foodies Club.

After years of controversy, Colorado University finally fired Ward Churchill yesterday afternoon.

CU President Hank Brown had earlier recommended the dismissal. In the end, there really wasn’t much choice, Brown said. Churchill “falsified history and fabricated history.” And Churchill “did not express regret, apologize or agree to refrain from this behavior in the future,” Brown said.

Some 25 faculty members on three committees had looked at the evidence against Churchill and found truth in the allegations he violated academic conduct standards, said Pat Hayes, regents’ chairwoman.
“That’s very persuasive,” she said.

Churchill accused officials of orchestrating an “illusion of scholarly research” to justify his firing. “That’s a farce, but more than that, it’s a fraud.”

Regent Cindy Carlisle, who cast the dissenting vote, said she thought firing was too tough a penalty. She agreed with the Privilege and Tenure Committee’s 3-2 vote in May to suspend Churchill for a year without pay.

The controversy was launched in January 2005 with word of a Churchill essay in which he called victims of the 9/11 terror attacks “little Eichmanns,” comparing them to Nazi bureaucrat Adolf Eichmann. He had written the essay shortly after the 2001 attacks. CU officials ruled that Churchill’s essay was protected by the U.S. Constitution.

But the spotlight on Churchill revealed numerous complaints of academic misconduct that had been raised by other academics, but never addressed by CU. He was accused of plagiarism, inventing historical incidents and ghostwriting essays which he then cited in his footnotes in support of his own views. Those allegations were the ones that brought dismissal today.

This will drag on in the courts for quite some time but, assuming there’s no settlement for the sake of expediency, the university will win. Like Steven Taylor, I’ve defended Churchill’s right to be an idiot from the beginning; protecting the most iconoclastic is as essential in upholding academic freedom as free speech, generally. Likewise, we agree that “systematic fabrication and plagiarism is the unforgivable sin in academia, and CU did the right thing in firing him.”

Cross-posted from La Política Colombiana:

Via the BBC: Colombia releases top Farc rebel

The Colombian government has released a jailed guerrilla leader in the hope he will encourage the rebels to release the 56 hostages they hold.

Rodrigo Granda, known as the Farc rebel group’s “foreign minister”, was freed as the authorities prepare to release up to 200 guerrillas from prison.

Colombian President Alvaro Uribe said French President Nicolas Sarkozy had pushed for Mr Granda’s release.

Among the hostages is French-Colombian politician, Ingrid Betancourt.

While it may well be that Uribe has chosen now to engage in this prisoner release as a way to deflect attention from the para-politics scandal, the bottom line is that ny including Granda, this cannot be characterized as a release of only scrubs.

Cross-posted from La Política Colombiana:

Via the BBC: Colombian rebels spurn jail deal

Colombia’s biggest rebel group insists it will not release any hostages even though the government has announced plans to free some 200 jailed rebels.

The Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or Farc, said the gesture by President Alvaro Uribe was a “farce”.

A Farc statement said the government must first create a safe haven for talks – a move Mr Uribe has ruled out.

Of course, the problem is that the last time the Colombian government granted the FARC a safe haven for the purpose of negotiations (back in the administration of Andres Pastrana (1998-2002)) it didn’t lead to anything aside from a handful of symbolic meetings and a nice place to keep hostages. Indeed, it was the kidnapping of several prominent politicians, including then-presidential candidate Ingrid Betancourt (who was seeking a meeting with the FARC in the demilitarized zone) that lead to Pastrana sending in the military and ending the zone.

As such, the idea that the FARC is going to get another demilitarized zone strikes me as sheer fantasy–especially from the Uribe administration. Of course, they likely know this and may be making such demands simply so that they can try and blame the government on the lack of peace talks when, in fact, they are the ones who don’t want to talk.

I will say that the FARC may have a point when they say that Uribe has decided to engage in the prisoner release at this time to generate positive press in the face of the para-politics scandal:

The plan was merely an attempt by the president to divert attention from a scandal linking some of his political allies to illegal paramilitary groups, the statement said.

New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson’s has a new ad campaign out that’s going viral on YouTube. The first ads, “Job Interview” and “Tell Me” poke fun of the fact that the candidate is a virtual unknown despite having easily the most impressive resume in the Democratic field.

Here’s the video of the two ads, which run back-to-back:

Kevin Drum thinks they’re “wildly, bizarrely, wrong” and simply confirm the existing stereotypes. His readers are “running approximately a thousand to one against” him, however.

Ogged contends that, “They do a good job of introducing him and manage to walk the line between deathly dull and cutesy.” Then again, his title references the Buffalo Bills. Presumably, he’s talking about the perennial Super Bowl losers of the 1990s and not the perennial playoff non-factor they’ve become since. Either way, that’s not good for Richardson.

Football analogies aside, though, I’m with Ogged on this one. Ads that are self-deprecating (like Michael Steele’s commercials for the Maryland lieutenant governorship) get people’s attention and tend to make people like the candidate.

Then again, Steele’s election day fate was quite similar to that of the Buffalo Bills. Even without Scott Norwood’s help.

Senator John McCain did an interview with the folks at YouTube which was, not surprisingly, made into a YouTube video:

Highlights:

• “I assume that there’s a camera there at all times. You really have to.” Quite right.
• He’s also quite accommodating when asked to give a brief “rant” about government spending.
• He dodges, however, what would seem a softball question as to whether the thinks homosexuality “immoral,” saying that’s “A call that will be made up in Heaven.” Huh?

via Hotline

I caught perhaps half an hour of last night’s so-called debate between Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and eight other guys. I don’t feel deprived at not having seen the rest. The format was awful and the not unreasonable decision to include people whose candidacy has no shot (Tom Tancredo and Ron Paul, at a minimum) made the time to valuable information ratio even lower than usual for these things. The Politico’s Mike Murphy writes that, “Despite the 100 laptops urgently typing away here in the press room, it’s hard to say much really happened tonight at the first Republican presidential primary debate.” And his fledgling paper was a co-sponsor!

My wife, who has lived in Virginia the last twelve-plus years, was surprised that Jim Gilmore, the state’s former governor, was running. Despite the fact that we’re both longtime political junkies who vote Republican, neither of us recognized Tancredo, Mike Huckabee, or Ron Paul on sight. That’s probably not good news for those guys.

According to the experts, either McCain, Giuliani, or Mitt Romney won; the most interesting person was Fred Thompson, who wasn’t there; and none of the also-rans did anything to change their status.

Erick Erickson: “John McCain won. Let’s not dance around this. Mitt Romney shined, he stood out, he did well. Rudy Giuliani imploded. Rudy totally and utterly self-destructed tonight. He had many chances to get in good with the core base of Republican voters and ignored every moment.”

Peggy Noonan: “It was an incomplete field that made its debut, but not an unimpressive one. For the first time, as I watched, I thought: Fred Thompson shouldn’t take forever to get in. History moves.”

Ed Morrissey: “Mitt Romney won this debate. He looked relaxed, answered clearly, showed real warmth and a sense of humor, and actually answered the questions asked of him — even the stupid ones.” As to the Thompson Boys, “Fred helped himself tremendously by staying out of this debate” while Tommy “mumbled, stumbled, and vacillated his way through this debate.”

John Hawkins: “Winners: 1) Mike Huckabee 1) Mitt Romney — Both were very charismatic.”

Paul Mirengoff: “John McCain had the best night. He seemed a bit nervous at first, but soon found his stride. He managed more ably than his chief rivals, McCain and Romney, to give answers that will appeal to a reasonably full spectrum of Republican voters without seeming to pander to anyone.”

Kim Priestap: “On the whole, I was impressed with Mitt Romney. ”

Roger Simon: “I think Mitt Romney won. And I think John McCain came in second and Rudy Giuliani came in third.”

Marc Ambinder: “Rudy Giuliani’s answers on Iraq, terrorism and national security were spot on and crisp. His body language showed confidence. For nearly every question about domestic policy, he was able to pivot to his experiences in New York City.” And: “Mitt Romney is great with first impressions, and it’s hard to say whether the spit-polish of his answers dripped off the stage… or whether Romney appeared natural and comfortable. He certainly seemed presidential.” And: “At least five guys on that stage were presidential. If [Fred Thompson] gets in too late, will Republicans be comfortable enough with the field by then?”

Rich Lowry: “This might be … the night when Rudy stopped being solely the hero of 9/11 and started being a presidential candidate like everyone else. It was inevitable at some point.”

Mike Murphy: “None of the dark horse candidates broke through, although several performed credibly and probably increased interest in their campaigns.”

Pollster.com reports that 13% surveyed in California immediately afterwards said they watched the debate and that, “Of those who both watched and are likely to vote in the California Republican primary, 30% thought former Mayor Rudy Giuliani won, 17% thought Sen. John McCain won, and 13% though former Gov. Mitt Romney won.”

Emails from the McCain (5 6 of them so far!) and Romney (just 1) camps assured me that their candidates won. No word yet from the other eight participants.

Live blogs: Michelle Malkin, John Hawkins, Jim Addison, N.Z. Bear (there in person), Stephen Green (drunk)

Other roundups: Matt Sheffield, Glenn Reynolds

Hotline has full transcripts: Part 1, Part 2.

Videos of moments that people are talking about:

Giuliani defends public funding for abortion in New York:

Jim VandeHei asks Mitt Romney, “What do you dislike most about America?” (courtesy Brent Baker)

“Do you believe in evolution?”

(Crooks and Liars has a longer version and notes that “Brownback, Tancredo and Huckabee” raised their hands who the group was asked, “Who does NOT believe in evolution?”)

A highlight reel

To McCain: “if you would be comfortable with tom tancredo, a staunch opponent of illegal immigration as head of the immigration naturalization service?” To Romney: “What Do You Dislike Most About America?” To Romney: “Would the day that Roe v. Wade is repealed be a good day for America?” To Romney: “What do you say to Roman Catholic bishops who would deny communion to elected officials who support abortion rights?” To Rep. Paul: “Do you trust the mainstream media?” To All: “Do you think Scooter Libby should be pardoned?” To All: “Does anyone want to pardon him? I want to see .. does any Gentlemen want to raise his hand and say pardon him?” To all: “Would it be good for America to have Bill Clinton back living in the White House?” Romney: “You have got to be kidding.”

Political Insider’s Alec Oveis:

Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D/I-CT) told CongressDaily that he will support Sen. Susan Collins’s (R-ME) re-election bid in 2008, “even though Democrats have already targeted her seat to try to keep control of the Senate.”

“Lieberman also reserved the option of endorsing a Republican for president in 2008 and repeated statements that he has not ruled out a future — albeit unlikely — switch to the Republican Party.”

This has moved beyond the point of farce. Lieberman has cut ties with the Democrats–who cut ties with him in the primary, after all–but continues to pretend that he’s an “Independent Democrat.”

He should resign his seat and run for re-election as a Republican in 2008. Indeed, I suspect Jodi Rell could be talked into appointing Lieberman to fill the seat created by the Lieberman resignation.

There is a growing bipartisan consensus among Congressmen that they work too damned hard, reports The Politico’s Ryan Grim.

Even before Democratic leaders have made good on promises to harness lawmakers five days a week, cross-party opposition is growing, with senators ready to revolt and House members simmering over the new schedule.

The most popular move afoot would have lawmakers working for three weeks at a stretch with a week off — or some variation on that theme, several House and Senate members said. Such a schedule would roughly reflect the one in practice under previous Republican rule in the Senate. “They should really work us so we get things done, then give us a few weeks off so we can do the Kiwanis Clubs and all that,” said Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz. “If you leave early Monday, yes, you can get here for a 4:30 vote, but you lose the whole working day of Monday.”

There’s a broadening bipartisan “uprising” to ditch the longer workweek among both lawmakers and staff, especially in the Senate, said a top Democratic Senate aide. “It’s a grind,” said Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., who enjoys one of the easiest commutes to the Capitol from his home in Northern Virginia. “It’s a lot more stringent than people originally thought it would be.” A visibly annoyed Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., agreed: “I just told (Reid) I won’t be back by 4:30″ for the vote Monday, “even though I’m catching a 1:55 flight.”

But the Democratic leadership isn’t budging. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said that he’s gotten complaints from both sides of the aisle, but that the schedule is set. The proposed plan of three weeks on, one week off, he said, is something he’s heard a lot about. “We’ll look at it, but nothing’s going to change this year,” he said. And House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California is holding firm on the existing schedule, a leadership aide said.

From the perspective of the electorate, where a five day work week would often constitute a reduction in workload, this seems even more farcical than lawmakers making nearly $200,000 a year complaining about how hard it is to make ends meet. Given the current job description of Members of Congress, though, these complaints are valid.

Once upon a time, Congress was in session for a few months at a time and then out for long recesses, especially during the days before air conditioning when summers on the Potomac were too hot to endure. Nowadays, though, Members have to juggle year-round sessions with the reality of the permanent campaign. Senators and, especially, Representatives are expected to be back home every weekend so that they can judge the Little Miss Peapatch contest, eat barbecue, and kiss babies.

My conservative instincts on these matters has me torn. On the one hand, it seemed somehow wrong that Members were being paid a handsome salary for a three day work week that involved them spending our money on pork projects to help get themselves re-elected and then spending the other four days back home (on their dime) working to get re-elected. On the other, if they spend five days a week in Washington, they’re going to cause 40% more mischief. Forced to chose, I’d rather them go home.