On the front page today you see the link to an AP article which states that "Israel defied a surprisingly blunt U.S. demand that it freeze all building in West Bank Jewish settlements, saying Thursday it will press ahead with construction."

Obviously Netenyahu is going to be a problem; anyone paying attention during the 1990s already knows that.  That said, the continued construction of settlements, and yes that includes so called "natural-growth" in existing settlements, is more than just Netanyahu slow walking the peace process.   

The continued construction of settlements, legal and illegal, new and natural-growth represents a far bigger problem than just not pursuing peace.  There are two very important issues here:  1.) the continued construction of settlements derails the peace process because, rightfully, the Palestinians have to make this a deal breaker and 2.) those behind the construction are well aware of 1.) above, are glad about it and urge continued construction for the express purpose of preventing peace and a two state solution.

It is very clear that Netenyahu cannot and does not want to control those who are illegally constructing settlements and is in favor of expanding existing settlements.  Now it is certainly correct that Israelis may choose their own leader and he runs Israel.  No problem.  Here is the very simple solution: until such time as all settlement construction ceases (including new, "legal", illegal, natural growth or what ever other term you like is), all illegal settlements are razed, and all unauthorized check points in the Westbank are removed - NO MORE MONEY - Nothing - Nada - Not one Dollar. 

 Israel received in the year 2006 (the most recent year I could find) $ 2,257,200,000.00.   While I do not know what Israel is receiving this year, I am sure it is similar.  I am also certain that Israel would like to see this money.  Thus, its very simple - end the settlement nonsense or  no more money.  Figure that should solve the problem in about a week:  no more settlements or no more Bibi because the government falls. 

I am a huge supporter of Israel.  That said, I cannot advocate that we bow to the whims of a maniac (Bibib) or the far right lunatics who would pursue unbridled settlement construction for the express purpose of preventing peace.  That is not in the best interests of Israel or the United States! 

As an attorney who practices (at least partially) in the area of criminal defense, the US attorney purge is a very scary story! Virtually every prosecutor I've dealt with (admission: almost 100% of who work for the state of Connecticut) are good people, who work very hard at their jobs. That said, believe me there is a significant difference in the way they view a particular set of facts and the way a typical defense attorney views the same facts. Moreover, I can't think of any of them who wouldn't push back very hard on anyone trying to dictate how they do their jobs! (though this is likely to be driven by the only lightly political way in which state's attorneys in CT are appointed)

Nothing is scarier to a defense attorney, or for that matter a defendant, than a prosecutor who is allowing politics to creap into their decisions. Its difficult enough to work within the system as it is designed to work. To convince a prosecutor that facts don't mean what they appear to mean is hard enough. It is impossible to conceive of how this could possibly be achieved if there is political pressure being used to drive the prosector. Especially because this pressure is, virtually, always secret. (or if not actually secret, then its at a level that is so sotto voce that it can't be addressed directly).

As a Connecticut attorney (and Democrat) I am very concerned with the new appointment of Kevin O'Connor to be Gonzalez chief of staff. O'Connor was a rising star in the state Republican party - he was the 1998 sacrificial lamb against Congressman John Larsen (CT-01).

Political appointment or not, I've met Attorney O'Connor and heard him speak at a local bar meeting. He's pleasant, he's articulate, bright and seems to be capable of doing the job. His office has even prosecuted high profile Republicans, i.e. John Rowland, Paul Sylvester etc.

We've had scandals applenty here. Due to Rowland being on the take, we've had campaign finance reform (though badly flawed) and state contractor reform. We've had a former state supreme court justice hauled before the legislature because he held back a controversial decisions so that another member of the majority on that decision could be appointed chief justice.

The last thing we need is another connnection to scandal. Nor do we need an absentee United States Attorney. (this is by no means a criticism of the other attorneys who, in my limited experience, are always professional). I agree with Chris Dodd - congratulations on the promotion - but if its going through we need another US Attorney for this district. Not just because the appointment means the US attorney won't be here, but also because we don't need any more controvery within the Connecticut political or legal systems.

Winning the locals, energizes your local party - allows you to pick up new volunteers, new ideas and to solidify the supporters you have locally without the cacaphony of national issues which can have a dramatic effect in a local area.   Most important though: winning local elections creates (hopefully) your bench of candidates for the future.  How many mayors used to be city council members or board of education chairrmen? etc.

That said - I live in Danbury, Connecticut and we are working very hard to take back a Democratic City from a Republican mayor who has done virtually nothing except cut ribbons on projects started by his Democratic predecessor. 

Any one local to my area and who wants to get involved, post a reply and we can get in touch.  Everyone else: what is the state of the local elections?  are we picking up mayor's officers or city councils etc?  what is the general mood of the voters in your area?