Does it really surprise anyone that Massachusetts would take the initiative in dismantling parental rights?

The New York Sun reports…

With the eyes of the world focused on the Middle East peace talks in Annapolis, Md., President Bush’s war tsar, Lieutenant General Douglas Lute, quietly announced that the American and Iraqi governments will start talks early next year to bring about an end to the allied occupation by the close of Mr. Bush’s presidency.

The negotiations will bring to a formal conclusion the U.N. Chapter 7 Security Council involvement in the occupation and administration of Iraq, and are expected to reduce the number of American troops to about 50,000 troops permanently stationed there but largely confined to barracks, from the current 164,000 forces on active duty.

“The basic message here should be clear. Iraq is increasingly able to stand on its own. That’s very good news. But it won’t have to stand alone,” General Lute yesterday told reporters in the White House.

Since my lunch hour is just about ending, I’ll give my thoughts on this later. In the meantime, please discuss.

HAT TIP: Right in a Left World.

UPDATE: Press briefing.

As evidence mounts proving that the surge is working far better than predicted, it is hardly surprising that Democrats like John “ABSCAM” Murtha are not only saying that such progress is irrelevant, but that we’re doomed to be defeated anyway.

According to a new study, the Democrats are the real “party of the rich.”

Democrats like to define themselves as the party of poor and middle-income Americans, but a new study says they now represent the majority of the nation’s wealthiest congressional districts.

In a state-by-state, district-by-district comparison of wealth concentrations based on Internal Revenue Service income data, Michael Franc, vice president of government relations at the Heritage Foundation, found that the majority of the nation’s wealthiest congressional jurisdictions were represented by Democrats.

He also found that more than half of the wealthiest households were concentrated in the 18 states where Democrats hold both Senate seats.

There’s actually a lot of interesting information in the study, so read the rest of the story. I’m sure some liberals here will dismiss the study and its results because of who conducted it, but it seems to me that their methods are pretty straightforward.

The story also notes how the Democrats’ agenda is clearly being influenced by their rich constituents, as Michael France explained in this Heritage press release.

Anyway, I hope everyone, even those rich, rich Democrats, are enjoying Black Friday today.

An interesting revelation…

Democratic U.S. Sen. Max Baucus, who is running for his sixth term next year, didn’t own a home in Montana for 11 years of his 29-year Senate career.

State Republicans say Baucus has become a full-time Washington, D.C., politician who no longer really lives in Montana. They say the issue will come up in the upcoming campaign.

Baucus now owns one-half of his mother’s Helena home, and Baucus and his wife, Wanda, are listed on the home’s title as owners, records show.

Baucus spokesman Barrett Kaiser said the senator has always considered the house where he grew up “home” and returns at least twice a month.

“He’s called it home for as long as he can remember,” Kaiser said. “It’s the house where his son comes to visit his grandmother and it’s likely where Max’s grandchildren will come, too.”

Chris Wilcox, executive director of the Montana Republican Party, said it’s wonderful that Baucus comes back to Montana to visit his mother, but said it’s not the same thing as actually living here.

“The rest of our congressional delegation still keep their lives here, their families, their business operations” he said. “I think that’s an important difference.”

The issue of residency has certainly come up in the past and has been used by both Democrats and Republicans. When Mitt Romney ran for governor of Massachusetts, his Democrat opponents saw the threat he was and tried to claim he wasn’t a legitimate resident of Massachusetts, because he had been living temporarily in Utah while he was running the Olympics. Hillary Clinton chose an easily winnable state (New York) to move to in order to run for the Senate. After Tom DeLay retired from the House, Democrats sought (successfully) to keep him on the ballot in Texas despite the fact he had established residency in Virginia — never mind the fact he dropped out of the race.

How will this play out? Considering how rarely Democrats are held accountable for their corruption, I have little faith that a question of residency will actually do much harm to Baucus’s reelection efforts.

Looks like it may be time to submit an addendum to our original FEC complaint…

Bush’s approval ratings may not be desirable (though he would see significant improvements in his numbers by supporting more conservative immigration reform) but he’s still doing better than the Democrat-controlled Congress.

More trouble for indicted congressman William Jefferson…

Prosecutors have accused Representative William J. Jefferson, Democrat of Louisiana, of soliciting bribes in two suspected schemes that are separate from the bribery charges he already faces, according to a published report.

Prosecutors said no new charges would be filed because of the accusations revealed in the document, filed late Friday in Federal District Court in Alexandria and obtained by The Washington Post. But prosecutors planned to use the latest accusations during Mr. Jefferson’s trial as evidence of a pattern of wrongdoing.

The government says that in 2002, Mr. Jefferson asked a lobbyist for an American oil services company for payments of $10,000 a month for a family member. In exchange, Mr. Jefferson said he would help the company promote business in Africa. The lobbyist turned down the request, according to the document.

Mr. Jefferson later made a deal to urge the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to do business with an American rocket launching services and technology company, according to the filing. The company is accused of agreeing to pay Mr. Jefferson’s family business and a relative in exchange for his help.

A spokeswoman for Mr. Jefferson declined to comment.

And to think it wasn’t that long ago that Nancy Pelosi tried to put him on the Homeland Security Committee.

Last week, Harry Reid complained that President Bush was acting like a “bully” right before he decided to keep the Senate in session during the Thanksgiving break to avoid any “controversial” recess appointments. Roll Call reports that sources said “Reid made the decision after he was unable to strike a deal with White House officials that would have allowed swift consideration of several key Democratic picks for the executive branch.”

James Joyner of Outside The Beltway nailed it when he said:

One wonders why they’d do that, given how cooperative the Democrats have been in moving through Bush appointments…

Yes, it’s hard to comprehend how Reid can be serious about calling Bush a “bully” when Democrats have tried every tactic available to them to stall or block Bush’s nominations. Be it Miguel Estrada, Janice Rogers Brown, or John Bolton, Democrats have abused the filibuster to prevent or delay confirmation of highly qualified people, solely because they were conservative and nominated by Bush.

In other words, had Democrats respected the Constitution and given Bush’s nominees the up-or-down votes they were entitled to deserved, recess appointments wouldn’t be an issue.

Another interesting point by James Joyner:

Given that both parties have been in permanent campaign mode for the last fifteen years or so, the traditional checks and balances process has gone from a system to force compromise to one used to bludgeon the other side and score points. That’s led to both branches using extraordinary tools like recess appointments and filibusters on a routine basis which, in turn, ratchets the pressure up another several notches.

I would also add that this “campaign mode” has gotten worse since the impeachment of Bill Clinton and the 2000 presidential elections. Because of these two events, Democrats feel justified in abusing the filibuster, delaying funding for our troops, leaking the details of classified anti-terrorism programs, etc. etc.

Compromise won’t exist anymore because of the Democrats. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, one of the most liberal justices on the Supreme Court, was confirmed in 1993 by a 96-3 vote. Think any nominee by a Republican or a Democrat will ever be confirmed by such a margin again? Don’t count on it. Democrats have assured that bipartisanship is near death or already dead in Washington, D.C. Harry Reid’s threat to keep the Senate in session during Thanksgiving break is merely a symptom of a disease his party is largely responsible for.

Robert Novak reveals in his latest column:

Agents of Sen. Hillary Clinton are spreading the word in Democratic circles that she has scandalous information about her principal opponent for the party’s presidential nomination, Sen. Barack Obama, but has decided not to use it. The nature of the alleged scandal was not disclosed.

This word-of-mouth among Democrats makes Obama look vulnerable and Clinton look prudent. It comes during a dip for the front-running Clinton after she refused to take a stand on New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s now discarded plan to give driver’s licenses to illegal aliens.

Could it be more damaging information that has yet to be revealed regarding Obama’s relationship with Antoin “Tony” Rezko? Perhaps it’s something else. Perhaps it’s just a bluff. Who knows? If such dirt does exist, and Hillary’s campaign is not doing anything with it right now, there’s no reason to believe such information won’t be leaked. In fact, if this report is true, I think it’s a no-brainer that it will be leaked shortly before the Iowa caucuses.

If Hillary is confident about her chances in Iowa, then it would be ideal not to use the information. However, Hillary clearly feels entitled to her party’s nomination, and indeed the presidency, so desperate situations require desperate measures.

If she’s got the dirt, it’ll come out shortly before the caucuses. If the polls show the race close in Iowa, you can bet she’ll use it if she’s got it. If she doesn’t use it, it never existed and was just a bluff.

UPDATE, by Mark Noonan: CNN making the Las Vegas debate into a pro-Clinton love-fest is garnering a lot of criticism, even on the left.