In light of everything we've seen in the st couple of days I'm gonna go out on a limb and make a prediction:

VP Cheney will resign this month, Bush will appoint Secretary Rice to take his place paving the way for her presidential run in 2008.

I've been thinking that this would be a move by the administration since George W was re-elected. However my original prediction was that Cheney would resign due to health issues. The Republicans need to make such a move in order to "tee-up" a strong candidate in the next presidential election.

Also, it needs to happen before mid-term elections just in case the Senate sees a change in leadership.

We'll see...

From the AP in a story about Saddam Hussein:

"The ousted president, who looked disheveled and appeared in his slippers, shouted "Down with Bush!"

Sounds like Saddam's been listening to Al Franken a bit to much!

I've had a bit of a vacation from the blogosphere, just plain too busy protecting my clients to post.

Now I have to get something off my chest and I look forward to the debate that I hope it creates.

I am a lobbyist. What does that make you think of - especially in light of what's occurred recently with Abramoff in DC?

Have a mental picture. Good, now let me tell you why my profession is one of the most important to our political process.

My clients and I give tens of thousands of dollars to federal, state and local candidates running for office every election year. If we didn't how would you know who they are? How would you know where they stand on issues that are important to you? Without the necessary cash flow you simply wouldn't. The electorate would show up on election day without a clue as to who or what they were voting for.

Okay, the people reading this blog will most likely be the exception. You read the paper (only 30% of registered voters do). You go to rallies and meet candidates, you call them on the phone. YOU ARE THE MINORITY. And I don't mean 20 or 30%. I mean less than 1% of voters take the initiative to learn about the people on the sample ballots the receive weeks before the election.

This money goes to pay for the production and airing of valuable commercials, Direct Mail, newspaper ads, etc. The costs of which DOUBLE during election season for candidates. Yes, it is twice as expensive to advertise John Doe for congress as it is to advertise Viagra.

Do we receive favor for those contributions? Absolutely we do. So does the retired senior who spends his weekends hanging signs. So does the college freshman that organizes a rally on the weekend. We are all part of the process and you can bet that once that person gets elected they are going to take the time to listen to what we have to say, to pay back the favor if they can.

However, if I walk into any of their offices and demand that they do something they don't believe in, I can go to hell and I will have ruined the relationship I worked so hard to build.

Campaign contributions are an important part of the system. I firmly believe that it's not how much money is given it's the REPORTING OF THAT MONEY that is most important. The public has a right to know where it comes from.

So how do I spend my time since I have all these politicians in my pocket? I spend countless hours educating them about the issues that are important to my clients. Elected officials rely on me to give them the information they need to make a decision. Oh, and they get it from both sides. I do tons of research. I take very difficult and technical issues and make them easy to understand so that the elected official can comprehend it all.

Our elected officials are required to make decisions about hundreds of issues. Do you expect them all to go to the library and learn about them? No. They get their information from me and the lobbyist on the other side of the issue.

Let’s not forget about the public. They provide a lot of information too but it is mostly emotional, not factual in nature.

As a lobbyist I represent my clients before all political bodies. I pass laws that help protect businesses that employ the public, pay millions in taxes each year and hugely benefit the communities where they live.

Not only do I funnel money to campaigns I also provide strategies for my clients to give ten of thousands of dollars to non-profit organizations that help the poor, children, animals and old people.

I’m a republican but I support the elections of some of the most liberal people I’ve ever met. They may not vote my way but if they prove to me that they’re trustworthy and will tell it to me straight, I’ll support your election.

Finally (for now) as a lobbyist I am the negotiator, the liaison, the deal maker between two sides of an issue. If I can cut a deal that gets a new park for a community and the ability for a client to build down the street, I’ll do it. It’s not always either or.

Anyway, that’s what on my mind today.

I have heard from a lot of people and have seen blogged around here the accusation that Judge Alito supports the strip searching of little girls. Renegade says it alot on his Blog "outside the Box." here is what he said today:

"And Judge Alito backs this up in two ways. First, he voted in favor of the strip search of a ten year old girl, even though she was not listed on the search warrant, which is required BY LAW, and even though such a search is a direct and flagrant violation of the right of every American to be secure in their persons. Was she secure in her person? And how can ANYONE justify strip searching a ten year old little girl?

"Do you fully understand what that sort of search entails? We're not talking here about just removing her clothes. She was told, along with her mother, to turn around and bend over. This is what they do when they do a body cavity search. She was, in fact, molested. Doesn't matter if you think it's a legal technicality, in her little girl's mind, someone was making physical contact with the most intimate part of her body against her will."

I have to say first, Renegade backed up his assertion with the court document that supposedly backed up the claim. To see it, please visit his blog at: http://outsidethebox.blogstream.com/

However, he should have known that someone would actually read it.

The case was heard before circuit court judges Alito, Ambro and Chertoff. It involved a police search for drugs at the home of an alledged drug dealer. At question was the warrant that the officers relied on to perform the search. The cover page of the warrant did not say to seacrh all occupants but the attached affidavit did.

Here are judge Alito's own words:

"First, the best reading of the
warrant is that it authorized the search of
any persons found on the premises.
Second, even if the warrant did not contain
such authorization, a reasonable police
officer could certainly have read the
warrant as doing so, and therefore the
appellants are entitled to qualified
immunity."

For liberals to say that this decision clearly demonstrates that Alito doesn't support the 4th amendment is ridiculous.

In typical liberal style, the story was embellished just a little bit. More from the document:

"The officers decided to search Jane
and Mary Doe for contraband, and sent for
the meter patrol officer. When she
arrived, the female officer removed both
Jane and Mary Doe to an upstairs
bathroom. They were instructed to empty
their pockets and lift their shirts. The
female officer patted their pockets. She
then told Jane and Mary Doe to drop their
pants and turn around. No contraband
was found. With the search completed,
both Jane and Mary Doe were returned to
the ground floor to await the end of the
search."

Humiliating, absolutely. Molestation, not a chance.

The officers had the right to search the mother and the daughter because the affadavit clearly said "and all occupants of the home." It wasn't on the cover of the warrant because "all occupants of the home" didn't fit in the little bearocratic box. Did the magistrate sugn the warrant without reading all the information? Are the officers supposed to assume that magistrate didn't take the document seriously enough to read the whole thing. Common!

They were in their home, dad's selling drugs (of course they have no clue). The cops come, search the home, search the occupants. Happens all the time.

It comes down to a typo. They had the warrant, they had probable cause. Cops were going to get the bad guys. sSometimes even a 10 year old has to drop her pants to prove she's not packin'.