From AP:

In a courtroom victory for Rep. Tom Delay, the judge in the campaign-finance case against the former House Republican leader was removed Tuesday because of his donations to Democratic candidates and causes.

A semi-retired judge who was called in to hear the dispute, C.W. Bud Duncan, ruled in Delay's favor without comment. Duncan ordered the appointment of a new judge to preside over the case.

The ruling came after a hearing in which Delay's attorneys argued that state District Judge Bob Perkins' political donations created the appearance of bias. Perkins, a Democrat, has contributed to candidates such as John Kerry and the liberal advocacy group MoveOn.org.

Byron York:

Perhaps the best explanation for the Democrats' decision to virtually shut down the Senate today can be found in one passage from CIA leak prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's news conference last Friday:

This indictment is not about the war. This indictment's not about the propriety of the war. And people who believe fervently in the war effort, people who oppose it, people who have mixed feelings about it should not look to this indictment for any resolution of how they feel or any vindication of how they feel....The indictment will not seek to prove that the war was justified or unjustified. This is stripped of that debate, and this is focused on a narrow transaction. And I think anyone who's concerned about the war and has feelings for or against shouldn't look to this criminal process for any answers or resolution of that.

Fitzgerald's statement, and his decision to confine the indictment of Lewis Libby to charges of lying and obstruction, threatened to dash the Democrats' hope of using the CIA leak case as an opportunity to re-debate the reasons for going to war in Iraq. So the party, or at least its leaders in the Senate, has decided to use another route, the shutdown of the Senate, as a way to achieve that goal.

Bingo.

Too many vowels?

This excerpt from the Village Voice exhibits the kind of utterly complete tone-deafness one has come to expect from the American Left:

Activists see obvious potential in Sheehan. The movement's icon did, after all, rescue anti-war activists from hibernation, breathing new life into their cause from the moment she set up her bivouac at Camp Casey. At the Brooklyn Peace Fair, hordes of fans flocked to her as she descended the platform, lining up for pictures, praising her speech, offering to escort her if she ever comes back to town. After Sheehan signed the back of a postcard with "Peace, Cindy," an ebullient middle-aged woman produced it, repeatedly, for all to see.

Besides, [Sheehan] has proven to be astute politically, as evidenced by anyone who has seen her work a crowd. At a recent vigil of Grandmothers Against the War, she pressed the flesh with dozens of aging activists, shaking each hand, thanking each volunteer, just like any politician.

I realize that a Village Voice writer might be expected to be sympathetic toward Ms. Sheehan's political views, but in what world is Cindy Sheehan "astute politically"?

From the Washington Post:

President Bush asked Congress today for $7.1 billion in emergency funding to combat a possible influenza pandemic brought on by bird flu originating in Asia.

In a speech at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda to announce a "comprehensive national strategy" against pandemic flu, Bush warned that although bird flu has not reached U.S. shores and remains primarily an animal disease, there is "cause for vigilance" because a pandemic could develop rapidly with devastating effects.

"Scientists and doctors cannot tell us where or when the next pandemic will strike or how severe it'll be, but most agree: At some point, we are likely to face another pandemic," Bush said.

"Because a pandemic could strike at any time, we can't waste time in preparing," he said. "So to meet all our goals, I'm requesting a total of $7.1 billion in emergency funding from the United States Congress."

Bush said that by investing that money now, the United States will not only strengthen its ability to protect against a global pandemic, but will "bring our nation's public health and medical infrastructure more squarely in the 21st century." Among the key elements of the plan, he said, is development of an ability to produce vaccines for a range of illnesses, including common seasonal flu.

"It is vital that our nation discuss and address the threat of pandemic flu now," Bush said, adding that "if we wait for a pandemic to appear, it will be too late to prepare."

This Washington Post editorial opines, that "any opposition to his nomination will be on ideological or philosophical grounds," and that "[Alito] is not a bomb-thrower but rather a judge who is careful -- even in dissent -- to be respectful of his colleagues' work."

The Wall Street Journal thinks it's "A Fight Worth Having."

Stunningly, the New York Times doesn't like it.

From a Los Angeles Times editorial:

Liberal interest groups and Democratic senators are criticizing the president's choice, and his allies are defending it. The battle lines are drawn, and they are familiar. Of course, this is no assurance that the coming fight will be edifying. But better to debate judicial philosophy and constitutional interpretation than executive privilege or Senate procedure. Even those opposed to Alito's nomination can be grateful for that.

From the Chicago Tribune:

Alito deserves to be judged on the totality of his career. That means waiting for a richer portrait of him to emerge rather than seizing on this or that fragment of Alito's past and concluding that we know him.

Alito's reputation, like that of Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. before him, is of a conservative and highly intelligent legal scholar but not a hard-edged ideologue.

The Weekly Standard's William Kristol:

October, 2005 will turn out to be the left's cruelest month since . . . well, in a long time. A couple of weeks in, it seemed so promising. October was going to be the month that would mark the meltdown of the loathed Bush presidency. Iraq was failing, gas prices were rising, a weak Supreme Court nominee was under assault, and the White House was under siege from a special prosecutor. What more could a Bush-hater want?

But it was a false dawn for the left. On October 15, the Iraqi people voted for the second time this year, and progress--slow and difficult--gradually became visible on the ground. The economy, it turned out, was chugging along at a 3.8 percent growth rate. Harriet Miers withdrew--and President Bush followed that foul ball with a home run in the impressive person of Judge Samuel Alito. And the special prosecutor produced only one indictment, and one that will lead no further than a trial focused on what Scooter Libby said or didn't say to three journalists.

This late October reversal means this for November: The left will get even more heated in its rhetoric, even more extreme in its attacks, even more willing to distort and demagogue.

The Wall Street Journal's John Fund:

As President Bush prepares to make a new appointment to the Supreme Court, the lessons of the failed Miers nomination are still being absorbed.

One that deserves study is how a lightning-fast news cycle, a flat-footed defense and the growth of new media such as talk radio and blogs sank Ms. Miers's chances even before the megabuck special-interest groups could unload their first TV ad. Ms. Miers herself has told friends that she was astonished at how the Internet became a conveyor belt for skeptical mainstream media reports on her in addition to helping drive the debate.
...

While only a small minority of Americans read political blogs, they tend to attract high-profile readers in media and politics with nonstop access to a computer. Such people influence the influencers.
...

The Miers nomination vividly illustrates how the political battlefield has changed, from the artillery barrages of the Bork battle to the blitzkrieg tactics of today. Back in 1987, when President Reagan nominated Judge Bork, Rush Limbaugh's nationally syndicated program, the Drudge Report, instantly updated newspaper Internet sites, competing cable-news channels and e-mail message blasts didn't exist.

From AP:

Pluto has three moons, not one, new images from the Hubble Space Telescope suggest. Pluto, discovered as the ninth planet in 1930, was thought to be alone until its moon Charon was spotted in 1978.

The new moons, more than twice as far away as Charon and many times fainter, were spotted by Hubble in May.

While the observations have to be confirmed, members of the team that discovered the satellites said Monday they felt confident about their data.
...

The jury is still out on the impact additional moons will have on the ongoing debate over whether Pluto is actually a planet.

November 1 ...

In 1512 Michelangelo's paintings on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel were first exhibited to the public. In 1604 William Shakespeare's tragedy "Othello" was first presented at Whitehall Palace in London. In 1765 the Stamp Act went into effect, prompting stiff resistance from American colonists. In 1861 Gen. George B. McClellan was made General-in-Chief of the Union armies. In 1870 the US Weather Bureau made its first meteorological observations. In 1944 "Harvey," a comedy by Mary Chase about a man and his friend, an invisible 6-foot-tall rabbit, opened on Broadway. In 1950 two Puerto Rican nationalists tried to force their way into Blair House in Washington to assassinate President Truman. The attempt failed, and one of the pair was killed. In 1952 the US exploded the first hydrogen bomb at Eniwetok in the Marshall Islands. In 1954 Algerian nationalists began their successful eight-year rebellion against French rule. In 1973 following the "Saturday Night Massacre," Acting Attorney General Robert H. Bork appointed Leon Jaworski to be the new Watergate special prosecutor, succeeding Archibald Cox. In 1995 Bosnia peace talks opened in Dayton, OH, with the leaders of Bosnia, Serbia, and Croatia present.