A lot of folks have been looking at this topic, and the reaction has been strong - it shouldn't happen. Patrick Ruffini writes that the reaction should be enough, and that Commissioner Bradley Smith did what he meant to do, stirred things up to get that reaction. Seems like a reasonable analysis. However, I am not nearly so sanguine as Hugh Hewitt, who writes:

Answer: I have been teaching the First Amendment for a decade, and it isn't going to happen because it would be patently and obviously unconstitutional to classify the content of a political blog --which is essentially a cyber-newspaper-- as within the purview of the FEC.

Well, it seems that it should be cut and dried, but the good professor seems to have forgotten that despite the fact that the First Amendment expressly forbids Congress from making a law abridging freedom of speech, they did, the President (freedom man George W. Bush) signed it, and the Supreme Court weighed in and said it was A-Okay.

In short - don't take it for granted.

For Christmas I got a bottle of Williams-Sonoma Mojito Mix (would link it, but it isn't on their website). I decided to try it out tonight. One big thumb up!

Yeah, I know it is cheating, you should mash your own mint up, but honestly, who has time for that?

On a similar but mostly unrelated note, "Natural" Cheetos are quite tasty!

Last week, the ombudsman for the Washington Post wrote a column about reduced circulation and subscriptions, and in response got "more than 75 e-mails, letters and phone calls." And here is the surprising problem that the ombudsman discerns from those responses:

...the press generally, and The Post, have been timid in challenging the Bush administration....

Hmmm. Were I the ombudsman, and I wanted to figure out why people were dropping or not subscribing to my paper, I don't think I would base it on self selected responses from people who are obviously still reading the paper. I might look outside the universe of the faithful. Just a thought.

It might also be an interesting lesson to find out why people do subscribe. For example, I still subscribe, despite the way the news is reported and distorted, as well as the editorial policies. One reason is that the Washington Times doesn't have Dilbert (I suppose I could get that online) and when I subscribed, I also found myself on some, well, extreme mailing lists - which is worrisome. They weren't as extreme as when I susbscribed to The American Spectator, but still worrisome.

Still, I would bet money that despite the fact that not being tough enough on Bush was the recurring theme in his responses, that isn't why people aren't subscribing in droves.