North Carolina state bar files ethics complaint against Durham DA Mike Nifong

The AP has the story:

The North Carolina bar filed an ethics complaint Thursday against the prosecutor in the Duke lacrosse case, accusing him of breaking four rules of professional conduct when speaking to the reporters about the sensational case.
The punishment for ethics violations can range from admonishment to disbarment.

Among the rules District Attorney Mike Nifong was accused of violating was a prohibition against making comments “that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public comdemnation of the accuser.”

Stay tuned to KC Johnson at the Durham in Wonderland blog, who writes in his latest post:

This complaint involves solely the procedurally improper public statements; it’s entirely possible that there could be more to come.

All things considered, I certainly hope so.

He’ll have an analysis posted by 7 tonight.

Update: Here’s KC’s analysis.

The ethics complaint can be read here.

Prior:

Big gov’t Johnny announces plans to run for prez

The theme? Eliminating poverty via big government programs. Via the Wall Street Journal:

After the 2004 election, Mr. Edwards became director of the Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, where he has solicited policy ideas for fighting poverty. He previewed his emerging antipoverty program most comprehensively in an address in June at Washington’s National Press Club.

In that speech, he set a national goal of ending poverty in 30 years for the 37 million Americans living below the poverty line, lifting one-third of them above it in each of the next three decades. His “Working Society” agenda would mean a higher federal minimum wage, reduced taxes for low-income workers, universal health care, and one million new housing vouchers for working families, to help them find homes in neighborhoods with better schools.

Mr. Edwards proposes “Work Bonds” to provide tax credits to match low-wage workers’ own long-term savings. He calls for the government to partner with nonprofit organizations to create a million “stepping stone” jobs, to help welfare recipients and others get experience on local projects so they can go on to better-paying private-sector jobs. And he would open “second-chance schools” aimed at the increased number of high-school students who drop out before graduating.

He also wants to “lead the fight” against “global warming.”

McQ is right on target with his response:

A thirty year boondoggle aimed at doing what another 30 year boondoggle costing trillions couldn’t accomplish. And not a single mention of helping grow the economy. Not one. The primary engine by which people lift themselves out of poverty is completely ignored in favor of government programs of dubious or little worth.

[…]

Universal health care and fighting global warming, of course, if government based, are enormously expensive endeavors. The skeptical and cynical among us already are wondering why we would ever want to trust things of such importance to an institution which has no past history of success in fighting poverty (or much else) but does have one of incompetence, waste, fraud and abuse in about every endeavor it has undertaken outside of it’s core purpose of defending our rights.

If there are two Americas, it is made up of those who believe government is the solution and those who believe, more than ever, that government is, for the most part, the problem. And naturally, John Edwards falls into the former category.

Right on, and as long as people like John Edwards see more government as the solution to our problems, those problems will only get worse.

Ezra Klein has a post up describing Edwards’ official announcement, and notes that it sounded more like a telethon than an announcement of his candidacy for president. Of course, I’m sure it doesn’t hurt that Edwards made the declaration in the Hurricane Katrina-ravaged Ninth Ward of New Orleans, surrounded by poor black citizens in the community. As I said over a week ago, announcing it here in his home state just wouldn’t have carried with it all the drama and emotion that announcing it in New Orleans.

Here’s Edwards’ pre-announcement announcement of his candidacy:

Notice the theme of “personal responsiblity” in that message. Who is he trying to kid? He’s no more for personal responsiblity than I am for John Edwards for president. John Edwards is a typical Democrat in that he believes that government is the answer for all problems, and has proposed newer bigger government programs to fix other failed government programs. More layers and layers of bureaucracy. Just what we need. Oh, BTW, no comment from Edwards on any potential future efforts he would make towards ensuring that the sick and disabled will be cured under his watch.

Jimmie at the Sundries Shack is blogging about this, too, and believes Edwards is nothing more than an empty suit. While I agree, Edwards has the personality and charm, and the looks to take him far in the Dem race for nomination for president. And trust me, he will use all of those attributes in an effort to win, and he’ll get a warm reception from the media who will try to paint him as a moderate Democrat simply on the basis of him appearing to be just a regular guy, when in fact he has a lifetime ADA rating of 77.5% – which doesn’t making him a flaming leftist, but makes him solidly liberal. Don’t fall for the media spin on the Breck girl – he’s a liberal, and proud of it.

Related: LOL :D

Creating absolute moral authority: Mediots take the time to point out that Gerald Ford opposed the Iraq war

Former president Gerald Ford has not even been buried yet and already the media can’t resist glomming on to Bob Woodward’s exclusive interview with Ford, done in 2004, where Ford essentially said he opposed the Iraq war:

Former president Gerald R. Ford said in an embargoed interview in July 2004 that the Iraq war was not justified. “I don’t think I would have gone to war,” he said a little more than a year after President Bush launched the invasion advocated and carried out by prominent veterans of Ford’s own administration.

In a four-hour conversation at his house in Beaver Creek, Colo., Ford “very strongly” disagreed with the current president’s justifications for invading Iraq and said he would have pushed alternatives, such as sanctions, much more vigorously. In the tape-recorded interview, Ford was critical not only of Bush but also of Vice President Cheney — Ford’s White House chief of staff — and then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who served as Ford’s chief of staff and then his Pentagon chief.

“Rumsfeld and Cheney and the president made a big mistake in justifying going into the war in Iraq. They put the emphasis on weapons of mass destruction,” Ford said. “And now, I’ve never publicly said I thought they made a mistake, but I felt very strongly it was an error in how they should justify what they were going to do.”

In a conversation that veered between the current realities of a war in the Middle East and the old complexities of the war in Vietnam whose bitter end he presided over as president, Ford took issue with the notion of the United States entering a conflict in service of the idea of spreading democracy.

“Well, I can understand the theory of wanting to free people,” Ford said, referring to Bush’s assertion that the United States has a “duty to free people.” But the former president said he was skeptical “whether you can detach that from the obligation number one, of what’s in our national interest.” He added: “And I just don’t think we should go hellfire damnation around the globe freeing people, unless it is directly related to our own national security.”

The Ford interview — and a subsequent lengthy conversation in 2005 — took place for a future book project, though he said his comments could be published at any time after his death. In the sessions, Ford fondly recalled his close working relationship with key Bush advisers Cheney and Rumsfeld while expressing concern about the policies they pursued in more recent years.

You know what? I can understand if Woodward and the WaPo would have wanted to publish this story in a few weeks after everyone’s had a chance to pay their respects to President Ford, but to publish it two days after the man’s death is, in my opinion, a lowdown way to cash in on that death by generating controversy over what Ford said about the Iraq war when what we should be talking about and remembering are Ford’s accomplishments and debating about things he should have done as president that maybe he didn’t and vice versa as well as his place in history. Not only that, but any criticism of Ford’s opinion on the Iraq war right now will be portrayed as “insensitive at this time” thus implying that it’s wrong to question the opinions of a departed former president who was well-liked by many. Can you say “Creating absolute moral authority”?

More: Paul at Powerline points to a NY Daily News piece written by Thomas M. DeFrank where DeFrank’s recollection of what Ford believed about the Iraq war differs slightly from Woodward’s.

Update I – 5:32 PM: Speaking of absolute moral authority, Allah posted earlier today about the NYT’s love affair with Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter in which they give him absolute moral authority as a Republican critic of the Iraq war in part due to a speech he made three weeks ago. This is the price the GOP is paying for throwing their weight behind Specter rather than Pat Toomey two years ago.

The reception Jon Carry received in Iraq

WDAY’s Scott Hennen has a photo and report from a friend of his who is serving in Iraq on the reception Senator John Kerry received in Iraq.

Hey Senator, have you gotten the message yet that the troops don’t want you “stuck in Irak” with them – ever?

BTW, this isn’t the first time Kerry’s failed to draw a big crowd to one of his appearances. He’s just not a very popular guy these days.

Hat tip: Scott Johnson at Powerline via ST reader DS

Thurs PM Update and Bump – 3:33 PM: Was the Kerry photo taken at another time and another place – before his “stuk in Irak” comments? Michelle Malkin points to other blogposts that believe so, and in response does her own digging and believes those blogs are wrong.

Originally posted on 12/27/06 – 9:57 a.m.