The situation in Haiti is just another example of the "band-aid diplomacy" practiced by former President Clinton that will have to be cleaned up by President Bush.  Jean-Bertrand Aristide was elected president of Haiti in 1990, but was almost immediately overthrown in a 1991 military coup.  In 1994, Clinton sent 20,000 US troops from the 82nd Airborne to put down the rebellion and restore Aristide to power.  As they were about to land, the new leaders of Haiti signed an agreement to step down, and Clinton called it a done deal.  The problems that led to the coup, however, were never addressed, nor were the problems afterwards.  They were just covered up by a Clinton band-aid and left to fester, only to break out again after Clinton's watch was over.  Aristide allowed his puppet, Rene Preval, to take power in name only in 1995, but "won" re-election in 2000.  After that, perhaps feeling that the US would always protect him, he became a tyrant... and nothing was done about it.  Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) said in February 2003, "When Haiti elected its first democratic president in 1990, we had a great hope for economic and political stability and respect for basic rights.  But even Aristide has failed to bring in a new era of peace and prosperity.  Instead, we have seen escalating political violence. Illegal arrests, arbitrary detentions, disappearances, killings, crackdowns on political opponents, and restraints on free speech and free assembly are all too common.  In the last six months, we have seen new waves of violence, targeting journalists, students, human-rights activists, and the government's political opponents.  Those who commit these harsh acts of brutality and intolerance often operate with impunity, and in some cases, they appear to be acting with government support."  Of course, Kennedy and so many others were equally critical of Saddam Hussein until President Bush actually did something about the situation in Iraq, after which they changed their tune.  We'll have to see whether leading Democrats begin to criticise Bush for not acting to "preserve democracy" in Haiti. 

How many other problems did Bush inherit with his Presidency?  The first thing he had to deal with was the recession, which began in May of 2000 when the unstable tech stock "bubble" burst.  By the time of the election that November, the stock market was already dropping, and firms were beginning layoffs.  So-called "dot-coms" which had dominated the market throughout the 1990s were disappearing like a magician's trick.  Now, thanks to President Bush pushing his tax cuts through Congress, the economy is strong again.  The GDP (Gross Domestic Product) grew at a healthy, sustainable rate of 4.1% in the fourth quarter of 2003, and looks to keep on growing at a rate of 4.5% this quarter.  All economic indicators bear this out.  It's simple math: when you don't tax companies (and the people who own them) down to the ground, they have the money to expand and hire employees.

Don't let anyone fool you about the job situation, either.  The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that unemployment is at 5.6%, meaning (of course) that 94.4% of Americans are employed.  Sure, it's not quite the 2000 high mark of 95.8% employment from early 2000, at the height of the bubble era, but it's far better than the Great Depression-style 25% unemployment rate "Brother, Can You Spare A Dime" picture of doom the Democrats are painting.  In fact, it turns out that 700,000 jobs have been created since President Bush took office, over and above the millions of jobs the Democrats constantly insist that he "lost" (the figure changes from day to day) but were not.  The discrepancy comes from the data they deliberately ignore from entrepreneurs, small businesses, and the self-employed. 

Though 75 percent of jobs are created by small companies, according to the Small Business Administration, this sector’s entrepreneurial activity and the jobs it creates are left out by Washington bean counters when calculating official new job numbers.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) does its Payroll Survey by phoning businesses to crunch the number of jobs that have been gained or lost. This is where Democrats grabbed onto their lifeline, the 2.3 million figure. Look only at the Payroll Survey, and there has been a gain of only 522,000 jobs since Bush took office.
But here’s the rub. The Household Survey is used to determine the unemployment rate and accounts for those who are self-employed, and small emerging businesses that might be overlooked by the Payroll Survey. But the number of U.S. firms isn’t static, and the "fixed list" used by the BLS for phoning established businesses does not reflect new entrepreneurial activity.

President Bush has spent his entire first term in office dealing with the economy, al-Qaeda, corporate scandals, Iraq and North Korea -- all problems from the 1990s, each covered up with a band-aid and left behind by his predecessor.  Faulty or poor intelligence -- due to a reduction of CIA covert action during the 1990s -- kept us from preventing 9/11.  If the CIA had been fully funded, supported and used by Bill Clinton, we might have known that Kim Jong Il and Saddam Hussein were both breaking their agreements with us.  We might have known that Libya and Iran were close to having nuclear weapons.  We might have known that Abdul Qadeer Khan of Pakistan was running a nuclear clearinghouse, in fact.  We might have known that Saddam Hussein was making billions by skimming off the oil-for food program (as reported in The New York Times), and buying support around the world (especially from France, Russia and China) with oil vouchers.  We might have known exactly what Saddam did with the weapons of mass destruction the UN told us he had -- whether he destroyed, buried or moved them, and where. 

Haiti is just the latest in a long series of problems facing the last Administration that were given a coat of paint and a promise, to be redeemed by the present one.  I wonder how many more little time-bombs from the '90s are ticking away around the world, waiting to explode?

Like most of the reviewers who are leveling attacks at Mel Gibson's new movie "The Passion of the Christ", I have not bothered to see the movie before writing my review.  Like Andy Rooney said, why should I have to pay "for a few laughs", right?  My opinions are just as valid as his, and he hasn't seen it either.  If not having seen it doesn't stop other critics from offering well-deserved criticism of the movie, however, then it shouldn't stop me either.  

Most other critics are attacking the movie for its subtle anti-semitic overtones, but no one seems concerned with the blatant anti-Roman attitude the movie takes throughout.  This is an outrage!  This movie openly portrays Romans as warmongering, imperialistic occupiers of Judea.  Yes, I realise that the Romans did, in fact, have an empire which was occupying Judea at the time of the events shown in the movie.  However, that's no excuse to show only one side of their important story.  Where are the scenes of happy, laughing, playful Romans peacefully cavorting in parks or something?  No, the only Romans shown in the movie (at least, this is what I believe, not having actually seen it myself) are brutal soldiers.  One of them even insults a Jew by calling him... a Jew!  It's a completely unfair, totally unbalanced and anti-Roman portrayal of the Romans.

Another thing about the movie that upsets me (or will, when I get around to seeing it) is the use of Gore.  Everyone who knows anything about the movie (especially those who refused to see it for just this reason) says that it features an excessive use of Gore.  Frankly, I feel that any use of Gore is excessive, but what I really want to know is why he was even in this movie at all?  He's not even Jewish!  Was Al Gore just in the movie to yell angrily about how Judas betrayed Jesus?  It doesn't make any sense.  It's curious that the same critics who say there was too much violence and Gore in this movie had nothing but praise for violent movies like Gladiator and Mel Gibson's movie Braveheart, which also had too much Gore in it.  Perhaps they didn't complain because he at least looks Scottish.

The third problem I will have with the movie is its recurring references to Christian religious dogma.  Everyone in the movie seems to be spouting quotes from the Bible, except the Romans, who mostly speak Roman.  It's bad enough when people shove their religion in your face by wearing crosses under their shirts and all, but to have the main character walk down a public street with a cross bigger than his whole body is just unreasonable!

Last but not least, I'm unhappy with the way they made everyone look vaguely Jewish except the Romans, who looked vaguely Italian.  They even made Jesus and his followers look Jewish, while everyone knows they were Christians.  No wonder the Jews are angry!

Now that President Bush has been forced by recent events to make a statement in favor of an amendment to the Constitution to define marriage, you can see the Liberal spin already beginning.  Nearly every newspaper, magazine and news program is renaming what Bush has asked for to a "ban on gay marriage".  They treat gay "marriage" as though it were something already in existence that the man wants to take away, like the right to gun ownership or the free exercise of religion (both of which do exist, and neither of which seem to be defended by the media from the ongoing Liberal assault).  It's a definition of marriage the President seeks -- a definition that has never been needed before now.  Until the last few years, a "gay marriage" was one in which husband and wife were wildly happy.

Why should only the traditional form of marriage be officially recognised as valid?  It's a question I've addressed before, in my article "Rejecting Our Biological and Cultural Heritage" published at Useless-Knowledge.com last summer, but I'll reorganise and reiterate some of my arguments here. 

Every successful human society, stretching all the way back to prehistory, has been based on marriage and genetic ties, expressed as family relationships.  It's the foundation of human society and civilisation.  Marriage has always been the way for society to recognise and formalise those family ties and the continuity of the genetic relationships.  Even childless couples, especially those who adopt, still maintain the basic form and framework of the most fundamental of relationships to pass on to the next generation by example.  The idea that we should simply... throw away tens of thousands of years of a proven, successful base for human interaction because some gay people and advocates -- by no means all! -- demand that society's bedrock be shifted to fit their world view better is ridiculous.  It would have the same long-term effect on society that removing one's backbone would have on a human being.  The person might look more or less the same on the outside, for while... until he tries to stand.

And what's their reasoning behind wanting to change the ancient, well-understood definition of marriage in this specific way, these advocates of gay "marriage"?  What justification do they offer for doing so that can't be applied to other forms of marriage, and why not?  Why only two people?  Why only adults?  Why only those unrelated by blood?  What gives them the right to force society to move the line to include one type of non-traditional relationship, but not others?  It's incredibly arrogant, not to mention hypocritical.

The most common attack by proponents of gay "marriage" is, "How will two gay people getting married impact Bobby and Susie's recent marriage"?  That's an incredibly short-sighted and narrowly-focused question.  The truth is, it probably won't -- they're already married.  It will, however, have an impact on any future relationships their children will have.  Their grandchildren may think of "marriage" the way we currently think of friendships, replacing a formerly defining characteristic of one's life with something far more ephemeral and tenuous (the answer to high divorce rates is not to trivialise marriage further).  Their great-grandchildren -- if such archaic designations are still used by then -- may not even recognise the word "marriage" except as something in history books.  Without marriage, there is no family relationship anymore -- it becomes unnecessary.  And of course, the reduction of traditional values and family relationships is precisely what Liberals generally seem to want.  For decades, they've fought to replace Mom's apple pie with the Mommy State.

As Bob Dole said in 1996, in response to Hillary Clinton's book advocating intrusive governmental meddling in child-rearing, it doesn't take a village to raise a child.  It takes a family.  And marriage, the cornerstone of the family, is currently under assault.  We have made a Constitutional amendment setting forth our rights to free speech and free assembly, which were once under assault.  We have made amendments defining everyone's right to vote, when such were needed.  If we need to protect the institution of marriage from assault with a Constitutional amendment defining it too, then so be it.

Once upon a time in the 'sixties, there was a singer/songwriter named Phil Ochs who described himself as a "singing journalist".  Among his many great songs -- some serious, some humorous -- about the social problems of the day was one from his 1966 Carnegie Hall concert called "Love Me, I'm A Liberal," sung to the tune of "Rosin the Bow".  (I remembered it when I saw the John Kerry photo caption contest at a blog called Captain's Quarters.)  The song was supposed to be a parody, poking a little fun at the skin-deep Liberals who were all in favor of social change... except when it came close to home.  He described them as being "ten degrees to the left of center in good times... ten degrees to the right of center when it affects them personally."  I have a feeling, though, that Mr. Ochs would be horrified to find that the hypocritical skin-deep Liberals are now the leaders of the Democratic party.  A prime example is the Democrats' continuing calls for clean, renewable energy sources, including wind power... and Senators Ted Kennedy and John Kerry refusing to allow a wind farm within sight of the Kennedy compound at Martha's Vinyard.  "People want to look out and see the same sight the Pilgrims saw," said lawyer Robert Kennedy.  Not In My Backyard!  Many Democrats in Congress are against school choice, which would make public schools more competitive by allowing parents to choose which schools their children attend... but how many children of Senators and Congressmen attend public schools?  (Hint: not too many.)  Not In My Backyard!  They decry the evils of corporations yet own and invest in them; they favor gun control for everyone except their bodyguards; they complain about the waste of irreplaceable fossil fuels and dependence on foreign oil as they drive their SUVs and fly in their private jets.  The hypocritical NIMBY attitude of many leading Democrats today is perfectly captured in the lyrics of "Love Me, I'm A Liberal".

I cried when they shot Medgar Evers
Tears ran down my spine
And I cried when they shot Mr. Kennedy
As though I'd lost a father of mine
But Malcolm X got what was coming
He got what he asked for this time
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I go to civil rights rallies
And I put down the old D.A.R.
I love Harry and Sidney and Sammy
I hope every colored boy becomes a star
But don't talk about revolution
That's going a little bit too far
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I cheered when Humphrey was chosen
My faith in the system restored
And I'm glad that the Commies were thrown out
From the A.F.L. C.I.O. board
And I love Puerto Ricans and Negros
As long as they don't move next door
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

The people of old Mississippi
Should all hang their heads in shame
Now, I can't understand how their minds work
What's the matter don't they watch Les Crane?
But if you ask me to bus my children
I hope the cops take down your name
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

Yes, I read New Republic and Nation
I've learned to take every view
You know, I've memorized Lerner and Golden
I feel like I'm almost a Jew
But when it comes to times like Korea
There's no one more red, white and blue
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I vote for the Democratic party
They want the U.N. to be strong
I attend all the Pete Seeger concerts
He sure gets me singing those songs
And I'll send all the money you ask for
But don't ask me to come on along
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

Sure, once I was young and impulsive
I wore every conceivable pin
Even went to the socialist meetings
Learned all the old union hymns
Ahh, but I've grown older and wiser
And that's why I'm turning you in...
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

Since Howard Dean announced the end of his bid to become the next President, his supporters have been left out in the cold, in a manner of speaking.  Most "Deaniacs", as they were dubbed, weren't and never will be part of the Democratic party, which Dean once referred to as "the Republican wing of the Democratic party."  Their reaction to and support of Dean was an intensely personal thing, not a party thing.  To expect them to simply roll over and endorse an Establishment Democrat would be ridiculous.  As one Deaniac put it in a message on Dean's web site a few days before Dean dropped out of the race, "If the Democratic establishment thinks it can tap dance on top of our heads with an old hag from Washington, we will teach them a lesson."  Another wrote, "The establishment wants, craves nothing more than to drive Governor Dean from the race, and for his supporters to either go away or line up behind their anointed special interest puppet candidate John Kerry."  A third said, "I can not see myself voting for Kerry. He makes me sick."  Something tells me that these people are not about to meekly vote for whoever the Democratic candidate happens to be.

So there's an angry mob of independent voters out there, and the Democrats have as little hope of capturing them as the Republicans do.  Where will they go?  Who will these people vote for, if they vote for anyone at all?  Who has a chance at capturing the Angry Anti-Establishment voting block?

Tomorrow, Ralph Nader is expected to announce that he's running for President once again, as an Independent.  Normally, that would garner about as much interest as the candidacy of Mickey Mouse, although many Democrats blame him for siphoning off just enough votes to deny Al Gore the Presidency in 2000 (well, that's one of the many reasons they offer, desperately avoiding the truth -- that Gore lost).  Nader managed to garner a total of 2.74% of the overall vote, or 2,882,955 total votes.  Are the Democrats so worried about so few votes, and so sure that the votes will be "stolen" from them?  Terry McAuliffe, Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, is busy urging Nader not to run, and desperately urging everyone who can contact Nader to urge him not to run.  It's not about choice for the voters, you know; it's about beating George W. Bush.  Ed Gillespie don't seem as worried about the Libertarian party, which is often seen as siphoning votes from the Republicans.

If I were advising Nader, I'd tell him to harness the Dean Machine in any way he could.  A Nader/Dean ticket just might be the first third-party candidacy with a chance to win even one electoral vote since John Hospers.  Of course, Hospers only received that one vote because a rogue elector decided to switch his vote from Republican to Libertarian, but 1972 was a wacky year.  Nader has already decided to run, and can possibly tap the fanatic base of Howard Dean by offering him a Vice Presidential slot.  Though Dean has dropped out of the race, he has not yet thrown his support to one of the others still fighting to be the Democratic candidate yet.  I just can't see him pulling a Wesley Clark and kissing up to John Kerry (so soon after bashing him) by saying "Sir: Request permission to come aboard."   That was sort of embarrassing to watch, even for a non-Democrat like myself.

On the other hand, after watching all the Democratic candidates trying to speak intelligible Spanish in front of a Hispanic audience, and watching several of them grovel to the NAACP for missing a fundraiser, I don't think Democrats know the meaning of the word "embarrass" anymore.

What would the Liberal reaction be if other laws in California were simply declared null and void, based on nothing more than personal whim and a convoluted interpretation of the law?  If, as San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom claims, he has no responsibility to uphold the law (Proposition 22) because he feels it conflicts with California's Constitution, then perhaps California's restrictive gun laws -- which conflict with the US Constitution -- should be abolished as well.

For the last several days, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom has been issuing "marriage" permits for same-sex couples in an act of "civil disobedience"... in other words, a deliberate and flagrant violation of the law by the man elected to uphold it.  The pieces of paper his office hands out are completely worthless -- the poor saps might as well print them out at home and save the license fee.  On 7 March 2000, California voters -- not the legislature working against "the will of the people" -- passed Proposition 22 by a 61% to 39% direct vote.  The entire text of Prop 22 is: "Only marriage between a man and a women is valid or recognized in California."  That's it -- no legal mumbo-jumbo, no wordy caveats, just a plain and simple statement.  And the people of California spoke, and what they said was, "Hell, yes!"

To Liberal elitists, however, the people don't matter.  Their wishes don't matter (they don't know what's good for them).  Their votes matter, but only because you have to gather a certain number of them to gain power.  Mayor Newsom, in his infinite wisdom, decided that since he doesn't agree with the Constitution of the State of California, which he swore to uphold, it doesn't apply.  On 10 February 2004, after only two months in office, he ordered County Clerk Nancy Alfaro to begin issuing marriage licenses altered to remove all references to the sex of the applicants.  Two days later, before the first illegal license (I believe I've discovered a new oxymoron!) was issued, a lawsuit was filed requesting an emergency order blocking the Mayor from taking the law into his own hands this way.  Two judges have so far declined to uphold the law and prevent Newsom from issuing the false licenses or performing "marriage" ceremonies for people of the same sex, though Superior Court Judge James L. Warren did "agree to order the city to either 'cease and desist' issuing the disputed licenses or to come back to court on March 29 and explain why they haven't."  Meanwhile, the "wedding" march plays on... and on... and on.

Now let's compare and contrast. 

In 2001, Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, Judge Roy Moore, unveiled a massive granite monument featuring the Ten Commandments in the rotunda of the Alabama State Courthouse building.  He was immediately reviled and attacked by the ACLU and other Liberal groups.  Though the Ten Commandments is not a part of any one religion (it's part of at least three -- the various forms of Christianity, Judaism and Islam), Moore was criticised for imposing "his version" of Christianity on people.  The Alabama Supreme Court is not Congress, and did not make any law.  However, Moore was reviled for violating the "separation of Church and State" clause Liberals discovered hidden in the First Amendment during the Everson vs. Ewing Township Board of Education  case of 1947.  (I still don't see how you can hide as many words in the phrase, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" as Liberals claim to have discovered over the years.  Perhaps the Founders were fond of invisible ink.  Notice, too, how Liberals never have anything to say about those who violate the second part of that phrase.)  Moore was finally ordered by the United States Supreme Court to remove the monument. When he refused, he was removed from the bench, and rightly so, for he violated the law.  Olivia Turner, executive director of the Alabama ACLU, stated, "If Chief Justice Moore can decide which federal court opinions he wants to comply with, then nobody's rights are safe from any state officials who disagree with the law." 

So where is the ACLU now, with Mayor Newsom violating the law, ignoring court orders, and lying to thousands of homosexuals by telling them they're legally married when they aren't?  For that matter, why aren't the environmental groups complaining about the waste of thousands of "marriage" licenses that aren't worth the paper they're printed on?  Why aren't they flooding the streets waving signs (painted on cloth, no doubt), saying "Newsom Lied, Trees Died"?  For that matter, why aren't gay rights activists outraged at being lied to?  Do all Liberal groups automatically agree with Mayor Newsom that if you don't like a law, you don't have to obey it?  If so, then why didn't they agree with Judge Moore for doing the same thing?  We'll even ignore the fact that 77% of the citizens of Alabama supported Judge Moore's stance while 61% of Californians oppose Mayor Newsom's. This is about upholding the law.

It seems that it all boils down to Liberals supporting the laws they want to obey, and feeling justified in violating those they don't.  But such anarchy is no way to run a country.

Iran is at a critical time in its history.  Pro-democracy forces are finally making headway against the iron-fisted religious rule of the mullahs, led by the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.  For the first time, more difficult since Iran was taken over by the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in 1979, there is a chance for the Iranian people to achieve democracy by overwhelming popular demand.  President Bush has been openly supporting the rise of democracy in Iran and other countries.  A recent letter from the Student Movement Coordination Committee for Democracy in Iran (SMCCDI) to President Bush praised him for his steadfast support of democracy worldwide.

On behalf of the Iranian Student Movement and the Iranian Diaspora around the World, especially our oppressed countrymen, we extend our sincerest appreciation for your leadership and efforts to promote long term peace and democratic rule in the World.  We also want to use this opportunity to express, once again, our deepest gratitude for your consistent and open support of our people in their quest for true freedom and democracy. 
Indeed, your tireless support of our subjugated and tyrannized people has touched millions of Iranians and they view you as an ardent defender of freedom and a source of hope.  As one of the few world leaders that fully appreciates and openly supports the aspirations and goals of our subjugated country, we extend our thanks.  Let us assure you, as you plan for the conquest of Mars, that you have already succeeded in conquering the hearts and souls of millions of Iranians.  It is, therefore, imperative that you are re-elected this November, and you can count on our constant support, and votes, in the upcoming election.

If only there was a "truth in advertising" law for political campaigns... and if only we could force the Democrats to obey it! Would their campaign ads look something like this?

Vote Democrat!  We'll fight to reduce the CIA and decimate the military, then attack the President when the CIA can't provide correct information and the military is spread so thin we have to call in the National Guard and Reservists!

Vote Democrat!  We'll base our next campaign on mere accusations of thirty-year-old minor wrongdoings, instead of the issues at hand! When we're proven wrong by mountains of documents and eyewitness accounts, we'll demand more and more proof! Forget that "innocent until proven guilty" garbage! As a bonus, we'll make sure that the White House spends more time digging through old microfiche records than running the country and protecting you from terrorists!

Vote Democrat!  When a third-rate filmmaker who's a known fraud makes a baseless accusation against the President, we'll turn it into a major campaign issue, slamming the voters with it in every media outlet as well as the floor of Congress! We'll make such a mountain out of that molehill, even Colin Powell will be forced to deliver smackdown!  On the other hand, when a journalist reports an ongoing investigation by Time and ABC into a serious and recent character issue with our favorite prospective candidate, we'll squash the story so no one hears about it!

Vote Democrat!  We'll authorise the use of military force in Iraq because public opinion demands it, then vote against the money needed to fund it once the troops are already there! Also, we'll publicly attack the National Guard after sending them to war, saying that serving in the National Guard isn't really being in the military!

Vote Democrat!  We'll tell you we're the party of human rights, then do everything possible to repudiate a war which freed twenty-five million people from tyranny and brutality!

Vote Democrat!  Even though we fully agreed with UNSCOM in 1997 and UNMOVIC in 2003 that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction right up until our troops entered Iraq, we'll try our best to make the case that the President lied to us about it instead of the other way around!

Vote Democrat!  We'll force America to abide by a quota system for racial minorities and women in education and employment, while castigating Americans for being divided by race and sex!  Let hypocrisy be our watchword!

Matt Drudge, the internet muck-raking journalist who became famous by breaking the Monica Lewinsky scandal, may be repeating history today.  On his web site, the Drudge Report, Drudge posted a story alleging an affair between John Kerry and -- what else? -- an intern.

In 1988, Gary Hart's Presidential bid was derailed because of a similar scandal.  News of an affair between Hart, then the front-runner for the Democratic nomination, and Rice, an actress and model, was broken by the Miami Herald.  Within days, the disgraced Senator from Colorado withdrew from the race.

Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky was revealed a decade later -- the latest of a long string of allegations of misconduct by the former President.  He was so vigorously defended by Democrats that he was never removed from office after being impeached for lying under oath before a Federal Grand Jury.  He was only the second President to suffer impeachment.  (And if you thought of Andrew Johnson just now instead of Richard Nixon, you earn extra points.  Nixon at least had the grace and respect for the office of President to resign.)

All the history lessons aside, this story -- assuming its veracity, which I'm sure we'll discover in the coming days -- forms a fairly telling "litmus test" for Democrats.  

Should John Kerry be elected to the Presidency, he'll have to swear a vow to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.  When John Kerry (who claims to be a Catholic despite his views on abortion and gay "marriage" -- that is to say, about half of the time) married Teresa Simões-Ferreira Heinz, he undoubtedly spoke a vow to remain faithful to her. 

Leaving all the religious implications and imprecations involving marriage aside, can a person who would break one solemn promise be trusted to keep another?  Will the Democrats continue to support Kerry as they did Clinton, or will they drop him like a hot potato, as they did Hart?  How Democrats react to this story -- if it turns out to be true -- will tell us all we need to know about whether morals even matter to them anymore.

Personally, I expect we already know the answer.  They'll stand behind anyone they think has a chance to beat President Bush, morality be damned.