“It wasn’t even cleverly disguised. It was just blatant. I didn’t know then and I still don’t know how that happened, how was it allowed to happen…If I did that they would hang me by my thumbs.

“It was very troubling to me.”

That's Don Perata talking and Dan Weintraub reporting. Perata is the leader of California Senate Democrats and he's talking about the Reiner scandal.

(HT: Bill Bradley.)

Bill Sammon was my guest in the first hour today, and the topic was his new book, Strategery, which is rocketing up the charts, thanks in part to a combo of Hillary and Drudge --the most potent brew in publishing.

As Mardi Gras comes to an end, the cameras and reporters will pack up and leave New Orleans until the anniversary of Katrina rolls around.

But the needs remain immense and remain best met not by massive government handouts, but by person-to-person and congregation-to-congregation assistance.

Pastor Mike Hogg of Canal Street Presbyterian Church joins me in the second hour of today's show to recap how the rebuilding of his congregation and its church is progressing/

My contribution to the Da Vinci Dialogue, "Talking in Code: How to Prepare for Da Vinci Discussions," is now up at the Da Vinci Dialogue site.

If the issue is security, the solution will never be the election of more Democrats.

That's the bottom line of the ports controversy, and the president's continued defense of the deal today suggests that he knows that the longer the country studies any issue of national security, the better off he and his party will be.

From Reuters:

"My position hasn't changed to my message to the Congress," Bush said. "If there was any doubt in my mind or people in my administration's minds that our ports would be less secure or the American people in danger, this deal wouldn't go forward."

I have been reading Bill Sammon's new book, Strategery, and on p. 36 he recounts a Bush press conference from the Sp[ring of 2004, which concluded when Bush replied to a question by NPR's Don Gonyea on whether Bush though he had "failed as a communicator" on the war. Bush answered that the presidential campaign would answer that question:

I guess if you put it into a political context, that's the kind of thing the voters will decide next November--that's what elections are about. They'll take a look at me and my opponent and say "Let's see, which one of them can better win the War on Terror? Who best can see to it that Iraq emerges as a free society.?"

I feel strongly about what we're doing. I feel strongly that the course this administration has taken will make America more secure and the world more free, and,therefor, the world more peaceful. It's a conviction that's deep in my soul. And I will say it as best as I possibly can to the American people.

What is a proper use of American power? Do we have an obligation to lead? Or should we shirk responsibility? That's how I vciew this debate. And I look forward to making it, Don. I'll do it the best I possibly can. I'll give it the best shot. I'll speak as plainly as I can. One thing is for certain, though, about me --and the world has learned this.

When I say something, I mean it.

The president appears to be counting on his well-earned reputation for sincerity on matters of security to settle the ports issue. It may, or it may not. But it is clear he doesn't mind the debate. And increasingly it is obvious why not.

As with the Patriot Act, as with the debate over the NSA program to conduct surveillance of al Qaeda communicating with its agents inside America, and as with the war on all of its fronts, the president and the party he leads are serious about the debate and the stakes.

The Democrats aren't.

A photo op at the harbor with Chuch Schumer and Hillary is just another in a long line of stunts that is supposed to pass as a policy: Congressman Murtha's demand for an immediate withdrawal; Harry Reid's gloating that he "had killed the Patriot Act," John Kerry's never-ending campaign --they are all the same stunt.

It didn't work in 2002. It didn't work in 2004. And it isn't going to work in 2006.

If the issue is the nation's secuirty in a time of grave and growing threats, the answer isn't, and probably won't be for at least a generation, the Democrats.

Bush is setting up the next eight months to be yet another referendum on the war's conduct. Incredibly the Democrats have agreed to the terrain, which always has them fighting uphill. They seem to think that some combination of Katrina and the ports debate will allow them to emerge as a credible alternative on national security --when they refused to allow exploration in ANWR, opposed SCOTUS nominees in large part because Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito might agree that the president has stand-along war powers pursuant to Article II, and routinely argue idiocies like Dick Durbin's assertion that members of the American military are similar in their action's to the thugs of Hitler's, Stalin's and Pol Pot's regime or Howard dean's blanket assertion that the war can't be won, and that it is another Vietnam.

The sneering and jeering of Democrats on the ports issue is instantly recognized as rank posturing, the political equivalent of a demand for better exercise equipment from the morbidly obese.

President Bush is flying off to India and Pakistan to greet and meet two allies in the GWOT, two allies he has nurtured along from the brink of nuclear war to parallel if not collaborative cooperation with the U.S. in the GWOT.

He's betting the American electorate will want the real thing in November when it comes to serious national security policy.

The case for his optimism is compelling.

Peepsapalooza on National Pancake Day is here.

Los Angeles Times columnist Patt Morrison pens a wonderful tribute to Otis Chandler, publisher of the paper for two decades.

The David Shaw and Mitchell Landsberg front page obit, "A Lion of Journalism" begins:

Had Otis Chandler never worked a single day, his would have been a memorable life. An Olympic-caliber athlete, a champion weightlifter, an accomplished race car driver, big game hunter, surfer, cyclist, antique car and motorcycle collector, Chandler, who died Monday at 78, was a man whose avocations alone were the stuff of legend.

But Chandler did work, and in a remarkable 20-year span as publisher of the Los Angeles Times — from 1960 to 1980 — he reshaped this newspaper to an extent that has few, if any, parallels in the history of American journalism.

Watch LAObserved for reaction from around the city and state that Chandler deeply influenced, but also walked away from.

Today's lead editorial in the Wall Street Journal takes on Rob Reiner, the scandal surrounding the misuse of Prop 10 funds and the lousy economics and education theory behind Prop 82.

The editorial also calls on Arnold to come out against 82. It also notes that Arnold could immediately appoint a new chair of the Prop 10 Commission, known as "The First Five" Commission, which Arnold can do before the sun sets if he chooses to.

Key graphs from the editorial:

By the way, Mr. Reiner serves on the board of the Children and Families Commission, which oversees the expenditures of the tobacco trust fund. That Commission approved spending $23 million of tobacco taxes to finance TV ads that promote his own new tax-and-spend-on-pre-school scheme. This use of taxpayer dollars to lobby for more taxpayer dollars may violate state law preventing taxes from being used to finance campaign activities. And the Los Angeles Times reports that some $200 million of the children's education fund has found its way into the bank accounts of public relations and advertising firms, some of which are run by friends of Mr. Reiner.

The lesson: Beware liberals promising to tax someone else in the name of helping "children." They'll end up taxing you, while they and their friends benefit. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is now under pressure to oust Mr. Reiner from the Children and Families Commission, and it's amazing he hasn't already. While the Governor is at it, how about taking a stand against the June tax-increase initiative?

The editorial may prompt some new interest in the scandal, and The O'Reilly Factor is getting the mail necessary to clue Bill O into a story perfectly made for his program. (Oreilly@foxnews.com is the program's e-mail box if you want to join in the effort to encourage scrutiny of the Reiner scandal.)

E.J. Dionne hails the latest in a series of statements/maneuvers/dodges by Catholic elected officials to square their support for abortion rights with the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. Here's the key sentence:

For Catholics with moderate or liberal leanings, the argument from some bishops that they could vote only for staunch foes of abortion posed a wretched dilemma.

Was the dilemma to be faithful to their faith and the instruction of the bishops? Not in E.J.'s world:

It seemed to demand that such voters cast their ballots for conservative or right-wing candidates with whom they might disagree on every other question -- social justice, war and peace, or the death penalty. All are areas where liberals are often closer to the church's view. "Our faith does and should affect how we deal with issues," DeLauro said. "But we're rebelling against the idea of a one-issue church."

Of course the Roman Catholic Church is not a one-issue church, but on one issue --abortion-- is has unusual clarity: It is a grave sin, and support for the laws that permit abortion is a grave sin.

So grave, in fact, that some bishops do not believe supporters of abortion rights ought to receive communion as to do so is to scandalously flout Church teaching and encourage others to do so as well.

What E.J. wants, and what the bishops and the last and current Pope, will not give him is a blessing for disobedience on this central issue.

Six paragraphs from a bunch of duck-and-cover politicians won't change that.

I doubt the bishops are going to change their teaching, since it isn't their teaching but the theology of the Church.

Which means E.J. can continue to encourage his fellow Catholics to commit what the Church believes is grave sin --even mortal sin-- but he ought at least to advise his readers what the Church thinks of the actions of such politicians first/Catholics second.

Since E.J. didn't, I will provide the guidance of Denver's Archbishop Charles Chaput from an October, 2004 interview with the New York Times:

The place to start would be, does our voting for someone make us responsible for what that person does as a legislator or as a judge?…And the answer is yes, because we are in some ways materially -- we use the word “materially” -- cooperating in that person’s activity because we’ve given [him or her] the platform to be elected. Now, if the person does something wrong, are we responsible for that? Well, if we didn’t know they were going to something wrong, our participation is remote, but if we knew they were going to do something wrong and we approved of it, our responsibility would be really be close, even if we knew they were going to do something wrong and we voted for them for another reason, we would still be responsible in some ways. The standing is that if you know someone is going to do evil and you participate in that in some way, you are responsible. So it’s not…“if you vote this way, should you go to confession?” The question is, “if you vote this way, are you cooperating in evil?” Now, if you know you are cooperating in evil, should you go to confession? The answer is yes. There’s a more sophisticated thing here…it’s not so crude. The reason I want to stress that is because it is not like bishops are issuing edicts about who should vote for whom. It’s issuing statements about how a Catholic forms her conscience, or his conscience…and remote material cooperation or proximate material cooperation is cooperation, and it’s important for Catholics to know that, to be sophisticated in their judgments.

It’s about the appropriateness of…involvement, on part of individual Catholics and on part of the Church community. And the importance of forming one’s conscience intelligently and in an involved fashion on the major moral issues of the day. Now, you know, it is true that the Church sees abortion as the foundational issue of our time. It is. There is no way around it. There is nothing more foundational than the right to life.

You know some moral issues, all moral issues are moral issues, and it’s good to be on the right side of them all the time, but some are dependent on the basic principles of human life. The dignity of human life. You never violate it. Whether it’s the creation of embryos for embryonic stem cell research or abortion, are violations of the dignity of human beings, from our perspective. And you can never justify it. You can sometimes justify going to war. You may think that the Iraq war is horrible, but there may be sometimes when you can justify [going to war]. It doesn’t have the same moral weight. And, it’s not calculating 40 million abortions against 40,000 deaths in Iraq. That’s not how you do the calculus. The calculus is on the intrinsic act itself. You know, and abortion is never, ever, ever right. And so to elect someone who has no respect for unborn human life…or has a…what kind of respect?…a kind of respect that is wobbly…it doesn’t make any sense. Why would you trust someone with your life, if that person is willing to let unborn babies die?

I think Catholics have to grapple with the fact that their moral positions impact their relationship with the Church. And they haven’t often thought of that, you know? “I know abortion is wrong, but if I vote for abortion, that doesn’t have any impact on me.” Well the Church says, “Like heck it doesn’t. It means you’re not a Catholic and you shouldn’t receive communion, if you are in favor of abortion.” They don’t think they connect. And, now that some people have been making a very clear connection between the position and one’s relationship to the Church, people have gotten angry, they’ve gotten nervous, they’ve gotten mad, they’ve threatened to take their money away, they’ve threatened to join other churches.

In this morning's Washington Post:

"I give credit to Iraqi leaders for rising to the occasion," [U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay] Khalilzad said. "Going to the brink, of course, but more importantly, pulling back. I am gratified that the decisive crisis caused by the attacks did not lead to an all-out civil war. The Iraqi people, I hope, will learn from this to use this as an opportunity for a new nationalism."

"Great crises such as this can fragment, polarize people or pull them together," he said. "I hope in 10 years, in 15 years, in 20 years, people will look at this crisis as a turning point in getting Iraqis to come together againsta common enemy."

As a college student, Peeps won "St. Paul's Mr. Pancake" for downing 112 pancakes in a single sitting. The photoshop contest in honor of that achievement and tomorrow's National Pancake Day is being hosted at Radioblogger.com. Enter to win a Crosley Solo Radio.

A blogger beats the bigs in a Colorado state race. Count on this happening more and more.

The Rocket faces his son. And Koby takes dad deep.

Dad throws at his son's head the next time around.

Reminds me of John D. Rockefeller on his sons: "I cheat my boys every chance I get. want to make 'em sharp. I trade with the boys and skin 'em and I just beat em every time I can. I want to make 'em sharp."

With one contest underway, I think I'll run a second: A Crosley Solo Radio to the best e-mail to the O'Reilly Factor making the case for Bill O going after the Reiner story. CC me on your e-mail to Bill, who can be written at Oreilly@foxnews.com. A Crosley goes to the correspondent that makes the best case for focusing on the Reiner scandal to Bill.

More at RightfromLeft.

And thanks to The Blog According to Don for pointing to the Variety.com brief on where the Hollywood donations (including Reiner's) are going.

Peeps the Elder has e-mailed from Amsterdam that he is dismayed to learn that he will be out of the country on National Pancake Day. Please, get to an IHOP and lift a fork for the powdered sugar donuts king in exile.

UPDATE: In honor of Peeps, I will award a Crosley Radio to the individual who can best convey via photoshop effort the love Peeps has of donuts and pancakes. Post your photo (search Fraters for pictures of Peeps both with and without teeth) and send your link to hugh@hughhewitt.com and generalissimo@hughhewitt.com).

Ben Worley tries to protect Peeps/Chad by using a shot from three years ago, before Peeps went James Frey on us.

Aaron's got the idea.