Via Reuters:

President George W. Bush condemned the assassination of Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto on Thursday, an act of violence that shredded U.S. hopes for democratic elections in the country that is a key ally in Bush’s war on terrorism.

“The United States strongly condemns this cowardly act by murderous extremists who are trying to undermine Pakistan’s democracy. Those who committed this crime must be brought to justice,” Bush said in a statement to reporters at his Texas ranch.

The president praised Bhutto’s courage in returning to Pakistan in October to participate in elections aimed at restoring a democratic government after eight years of military rule of President Pervez Musharraf.

UPDATE, by Mark Noonan: Interesting commentary from John Podhoretz – The End of the Primary’s Holiday From History

The past three months have seen an odd turn in the presidential primary process in both parties — a turn away from the key issues confronting the United States and toward emotional and social vapor. The success of the surge in Iraq, coupled with the bizarre “we’re safe” reading of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran, drained some of the passion from the anti-war fervor in the Democratic primary electorate and from the hawkish fervor of the Republican primary electorate. In their place came the Christian identity-politics rise of Mike Huckabee on the Republican side and the “we need a nice new politics” rise of Barack Obama on the Democratic side. Republicans squabbled about sanctuary cities and sanctuary mansions. Democrats squabbled about how many uninsured there would be left if their various health-care plans were imposed on the country.

The horrifying assassination of Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan this morning comes only one week before the Iowa caucuses and 12 days before New Hampshire. It is a sobering and frightening reminder of the challenges and threats and dangers posed to the United States by radical Islam, the nature of the struggle being waged against the effort to extend democratic freedoms in the Muslim world, and the awful possibility of a nuclear Pakistan overrun by Islamofascists. This is what the next president will be compelled by circumstance to spend a plurality of his or her time on. This is what really matters, not the cross Mike Huckabee lit up behind his head in his Christmas ad.

Very true words.

In his column today, Dick Morris reveals that Hillary Clinton flirted with the idea of running for governor of Arkansas in 1990…

Bill, determined to seek the presidency in ’92, was weighing whether to run for another term as governor or to step down and seek the presidency as a private citizen. Key to his decision was whether Hillary could take his place, both to keep the seat warm for him should he lose the presidential race and to stop any unwanted revelations from surfacing while he was off campaigning.

But the polls I took at the Clintons’ behest found that voters saw Hillary merely as an extension of Bill, not as an independent political figure. Arkansans saw her possible candidacy for governor as an attempt to be a placeholder for her husband.

This says a lot of things about both Bill and Hillary Clinton. No matter how much Hillary tries to separate herself from Bill, they are a team. They can’t help thinking about taking the next climb up the political ladder without having something to fall back one. That’s why Hillary chose to run for the U.S. Senate in New York: a reliably blue state with a lot of electoral votes. The Clinton’s don’t care about the people they ask to elect them… they only care about power, be it gaining it or retaining it.

Man, it is so amusing to watch Democrats pretend like they are above negative campaigning and attacks (with the exception of attacking Bush or Republicans, of course) and yet, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have both launched sites chronicling attacks made against them by the other. There’s Obama’s Hillary Attacks site and there’s Hillary’s Attack Timeline site.

It’s nice to see that Democrats are above attacks and negative campaigning.

I would like to welcome another campaign to Blogs For Victory. Today we welcome Tom Rooney, Republican congressional candidate in Florida’s 16th congressional district. This is not only the second campaign to blog here, but it’s also the second campaign of the 16th congressional district in Florida, where the Republican Party hopes to take back the seat currently held by Democrat Tim Mahoney, who barely won Mark Foley’s seat in 2006.

Be sure to check out out Rooney’s official campaign site. You can also join his campaign’s official Facebook group, and add him as a friend on MySpace.

According to this Senate report, over 400 prominent scientists disputed man-made global warming claims this year.

From the introduction:

Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called “consensus” on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.

The new report issued by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee’s office of the GOP Ranking Member details the views of the scientists, the overwhelming majority of whom spoke out in 2007.

Meanwhile, Democrats have been using the politics of fear to increase regulations of all kinds in the name of the environment, like banning incandescent light bulbs.

FOX News reports that Tom Tancredo is about to drop out of the presidential race.

UPDATE: Endorses Romney…

Tom Tancredo dropped out of the Republican field for president today and backed former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

“At this point in time, (Romney) is the best hope for our cause,” Tancredo said during a news conference in downtown Des Moines.

The cause that vaulted the Colorado congressman into the race –– illegal immigration –– also motivated him to abandon his pursuit of the nomination, Tancredo said.

His continued presence in an election he could not win, he said, may have helped the campaigns of Gov. Mike Huckabee and Sen. John McCain –– candidates Tancredo says are soft on immigration.

Dianne Bystrom, an Iowa State University political science professor, said Tancredo’s exit and endorsement of Romney could shake up the volatile Republican field.

Tonight, I’d like to introduce our readers to Blogs For Victory’s first grassroots blogs.

Princella Smith and Leo Pusateri, who have been guest blogging with since we were at Blogs for Bush, are each heading up a grassroots blog here at Blogs For Victory. Princella is blogging at Blogs For Mike Huckabee’s Victory, and Leo is blogging at Blogs for Fred Thompson’s Victory.

If you are interested in joining Princella or Leo on either blog, or if you’re interested in blogging for another GOP presidential candidate, feel free to contact me.

UPDATE: A new one blooms… Blogs for Rudy Giuliani’s Victory.

Senate Democrats, lead by Harry Reid, are trying to strong-arm President Bush by refusing to clear a slate of appointees to the Federal Election Commission.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) just announced that the Senate will not clear four new appointees for the Federal Election Commission, meaning the panel that acts as a watchdog on political campaigns cannot function during the critical election-year period.

Reid is blaming the White House for refusing to withdraw to allow a majority vote on the nomination of Hans von Spakovsky for a seat on the commission. Republicans want von Spakovsky approved as part of a slate of four FEC nominees or they will refuse to consider any of the nominees.

Von Spakovsky was recess appointed by President Bush to the FEC, but his term expires at the end of the year. Democrats have refused to allow his nomination to move forward, arguing that his actions while at the Justice Department disqualified him for the post. Bush, though has not backed down, and the matter has been at an impasse for the last four months.

Now, with the Senate moving toward adjournment until mid-January, Reid signalled that Democrats will not move any FEC nominations if they include von Spakovsky, meaning the commission will only have two of its required six members. Reid said he offered the GOP a straight majority vote on all the FEC nominees, including von Spakovsky, but the White House refused to accept that offer.

How convenient that the FEC could be effectively shutdown during a presidential election year. Is this merely a case of Democrats trying to flex their muscles and appease their extreme liberal base, or is it also a way to protect Democrat candidates in an election year?

Funny isn’t it, just the other day Harry Reid was complaining about Republican obstruction…

I didn’t see all of the interview, but I did catch the part where Ron Paul advocated abolishing the IRS. And wasn’t impressed with Ron Paul’s response.

[youtube:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ohglJS3ltM 350 350]

Hey, the idea sounds great to me. But, as I was watching, I was struck by the fact that when Beck asked Ron Paul what would replace the IRS — a flat tax, a national sales tax, or something else — Ron Paul really had no answer. He basically said he didn’t want it replaced with something else or with more spending. Here’s the video:

His response to “What is your proposal?” was weak. Paul basically said he had no proposal. “Anything would be better.” Well, that’s great, but that doesn’t solve the problem, or answer the question about how the federal government would get tax revenues to pay for the things it’s suppose to.

Michael Illions over at Polipundit noted that Ron Paul looked uncomfortable at this point, and I have to agree, but I’m not sure whether it was because Glenn Beck was fawning over his desire to abolish the IRS, or if it was because he had no plan to explain what he believes the federal government should do to generate revenue to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States.

Mark and I have spoken privately about our predictions for Iowa, and a couple weeks ago, I said I think it could end up going Edwards, Clinton, then Obama. Mark and I have generally been at odds over how Iowa will turn out for the Democrats, but a new poll now shows Edwards on top, with Clinton and Obama not far behind makes me think that my prediction wasn’t too far out there.

Let me explain why I believe, at this point, that not only will Edwards come out on top, but that Obama will do surprisingly poor, in the same way that Howard Dean did back in 2004.

I watched some of the Iowa Caucuses in 2004, and the one thing that seemed to stick out in my mind was the common question everyone was asking: “Who can beat George W. Bush?” With no incumbent this cycle, the question I expect caucus-goers to be asking is “Who can win in the general election?” And I expect that most will not give “Barack Obama” as the answer. In 2004 Iowa Democrats made the strategic decision to bank their hopes on capturing the presidency on John Kerry. John Kerry had run a terrible campaign up to that point — and even had to loan himself a huge chunk of money to keep himself afloat at one point — but with the war on terror as the primary issue, it seemed logical to pick someone who served in Vietnam (albeit very briefly) and had a bit more experience than a governor of a small state who sealed his own records and appeals to the far light liberal bloggers.

If electability is as important to Iowa Democrats in 2008 as it was in 2004, then I wouldn’t count on Obama coming out on top. Obama’s inexperience is a huge problem for him. And, let’s face it, if liberals really believe that this country is racist, then how could they believe that Obama has a chance to win the General Election?

And how about Hillary? Aside from her past support for the war in Iraq, there is no one more polarizing and controversial than her. Still, I believe Democrats would consider her more electable than Barack Obama.

Democrats can claim all they want that there will be a blowout in 2008, but many factors will drive turnout on both sides, and I’m still thinking that this election will be close like the previous two.

The real thing we get out of this new poll is that Iowa is wide open. In the past few weeks and months, all of the top three Democrat contenders have come out on top of an Iowa poll. In the end, it can go either way. This latest poll strengthens my belief that Edwards can win Iowa.

So anyway, not too long ago I asked our readers for predictions about Iowa. Any revisions to past predictions? Any new predictions?

UPDATE: Strengthening the foundation for my prediction again… QandO points us to a story that says Democrats are worried about the electability of their nominee.