UPDATE BELOW THE FOLD.

The bottom line appears to be that she withdrew her name and nobody really knows why except that its described as a "personal matter".

A source insists that the "private matter" that caused Caroline Kennedy to withdraw from Senate consideration is NOT related to her uncle, Sen. Ted Kennedy's health.

It is a "very private family matter" that came to light this week, after Sunday, a source tells me.

Caroline felt that New York Gov. Paterson was prepared to offer her the Senate seat, but this family matter made it clear to her that she had to "be at home, instead of in the Senate."

Caroline called the Governor late yesterday afternoon to withdraw. He asked her to reconsider. After more thought last night, she decided to "put family first."

That contradicts a rumor I heard that Paterson had indicated that she wouldn't be the pick, but since there are no real facts, its hard to say exactly what went down.

... To make sure there is no pork in the stimulus bill.

DesNews Caption: Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., right, talk with reporters during a Capitol Hill news conference on a spending bill. At back left is Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa.

Michelle Malkin says it straight.

They can’t spend the stimulus money fast enough to actually stimulate anything other than campaign coffers, media buzz, and bureaucratic paperwork. President Obama asserted that there is no disagreement on the need to Do Something. He’s wrong. Two hundred economists spoke up this week in an open letter disseminated by the libertarian Cato Institute: “More government spending by Hoover and Roosevelt did not pull the United States economy out of the Great Depression in the 1930s,” they said. “More government spending did not solve Japan’s ‘lost decade’ in the 1990s. As such, it is a triumph of hope over experience to believe that more government spending will help the U.S. today.”

And that must be the message of gimlet-eyed fiscal conservatives in Washington who should wear the “obstructionist” badge proudly. Obstructionism in the name of fiscal sanity is no vice. Panicked profligacy in the name of blind bipartisanship is no virtue.

Enough whining--time to go to work.

Not a single Republican vote on the House giant hog package. Democrats are disappointed, but all things considered, more slop for them. Politically though, they are on their own. The usual term for blowing it big time in Washington is called "overreach". Out here in America, we just call it greed. A stimulus package without economically stimulating elements is doomed to failure and there is one thing no amount of media cheerleading can ever overcome--millions of empty American wallets.

I was actually surprised by the Republican solidarity, particularly in light of the view that while they have official leadership, they don't have a charismatic leader to rally them to a particular vision. It surprised the Democrats as well.

Some Democrats seemed surprised that no Republicans voted for the measure.

“Not one person felt his or her district needed to have any of this assistance?” Representative Rosa DeLauro, Democrat of Connecticut, asked of the Republicans. “That can’t be.”

I found that statement very interesting. DeLauro--thinking like a typical Democrat pol, thought that the prospect of goodies for the constituents would tip Republicans over to their side, apparently forgetting that this was specifically what led to the Republican defeat in 2006. I suspect under different circumstances, some may have been tempted, but what the monolithic 'no' vote was really a wager of the program's failure and the prospect of perhaps returning to power in the next 2-4 years.

Put yourself in the shoes of a Republican congressman--breadcrumbs for the table for the rest of your political career, or a good chance at regaining the drivers seat with far fewer senior Republicans in line ahead of you?

At the end of the day, its a very convincing sign that the pig won't fly.

There is not much difference between a lynching mob and those in Congress who worked themselves into a frenzy to vote AIG bonuses into oblivion last week. Congress (and the President) showed they are willing to push us into an ochlocracy.

And now up and coming "conservative" darling Congressman Paul Ryan regrets running with the mob because others have stated the measure may be unconstitutional? Well yes... but if Ryan can't tell the difference between plain wrong and "merely" unconstitutional (and without help at that) then I think conservatives just learned something disturbing about Ryan's character.

Addendum - While Tom Maguire says the jury is still out on constitutional/unconstitutional (remember abrogating political speech was ruled constitutional too) the verdict is in on "gutless".

I haven't blogged much in recent days because frankly, I don't even know where to start. The Obamastein monster presents wide-ranging implications--real and imagined, that make it hard to be succinct.

A few weeks ago, I mused that the Democrats were not deluded into believing that Obamacare was going to rescue them electorally. Andrew McCarthy at the NRO echos that point over the weekend, but while I considered that they were saving their army for later battles, McCarthy (and apparently Rush Limbaugh) think its because the Democrats think that healthcare is a kind of political super weapon that will make them the natural governing party for generations to come.

More on that in another post. What interests me at the moment are the lengths to which Democrats are willing to go to in order to 'get it done'.

Let's be clear about this--reconciliation is a well-established parliamentary rule used in the Senate since 1985 when Robert Byrd proposed it. Its a kind of very specific compromise between the exigencies of keeping the government running, and respecting the rights of the minority. Only legislation that principally affects federal revenues is suitable for the reconciliation process, but how does one interpret that?

There's the rub.

It get's interpreted by a bureaucrat, the Senate Parliamentarian who gives it a thumbs up or down. Wouldn't you hate to be that guy right about now? No doubt the Democrats will threaten him with death of loved ones if he doesn't play ball, but in theory at least, he could look at the healthcare bill and say, "Are you kidding me?"

Then of course, there is the problem of getting the votes in both House and Senate to even get that far. If you're a blue dog Democrat, the call has come, as it inevitably does, to fall on your sword so that liberals can dine at the trough. I don't think that's as much of a problem as it might seem. Given the choice of a lucrative sinecure or spending years in the Congressional wilderness without seniority or portfolio, the sellout is an attractive proposition.

The real problem is the precedent, of which Democrats will soon find themselves on the wrong end. Republicans used reconciliation to pass tax cuts and other revenue-related legislation, but there would be little incentive for them to restrain themselves if it becomes clear that the Democrat paid no price for ending the Senate's role as a deliberative body. We would soon find ourselves in a cauldron of political instability as every few years would see the country wrenching back and forth between extremes in policy. I've been there done that, and its devastating for the economic consequences alone. In our case, it could be a lot worse, because the political instability would simply be symptomatic of a social and cultural instability.

Ultimately, the real solution to this problem is for Republicans to run on a detailed health-care platform that is realistic, appealing, cost-effective and consistent with American values of self-sufficiency and independence. When they win big in November, they'll be able to legitimately claim a mandate to implement their vision of health-care and thus replace Obamastein with a sensible alternative.

I got a chuckle out of this. The Senate's Sergeant-At-Arms warns Senators and staff against reading the DrudgeReport.

The follow-up email sent out by the Sergeant at Arms’ office late Tuesday afternoon did not mention Drudge but said: “Our Information Security Operations Center has observed a significant increase in the number of Senate computers infected by fake security software that is malicious and does nothing to secure online information.”

Hmmm. I get calls all the time from friends and acquaintances asking if I can fix their computers. I usually ask one question: porn or gambling?

Yeah, I don't think Drudge is the problem here...

For a guy who has been a fixture in Senate leadership for a good long while, its likely that you may not have heard of Bob Bennett--that is if you live outside of Utah.

A three term Senator and former business executive, Bennett is conservative by any objective standard. Unfortunately for him, his Senate career depends a lot of Utah's subjective standards for conservatism, which are somewhere to the right of Attila the Hun. He is in big trouble for having voted for the TARP funds and against the flag-burning amendment ironically sponsored by fellow Utah Senator Orrin Hatch.

I kid you not.

In less than two weeks, Utahns will vote in the Republican primary, and if Bennett doesn't win 60%, he'll face a runoff election. The last time that happened was with Chris Cannon, for whom the bell tolled for the final time.

I'm of two minds on this. I think it would be healthy for Utah and Senator Bennett to face a runoff election in the primary. Incumbents should remember where they are from and how easily they can return to civilian life if they displease the folks.

I also hope that he wins.

I don't think we are getting anywhere in this country sending politically correct morons to Washington. A conservative gut is a fine thing to have, but the wisdom of Solomon to go with it is even better. In Washington these days, there are a lot more questions about who the baby's real mother is, than whether Americans should be able to burn a piece of cloth with some stars and stripes dyed onto it.

Anyone who reads this blog knows how I feel about Obamacare, but that doesn't change the fact that there are some serious problems in our health-care system, and a role for government somewhere in that process. We are going to need a lot of bright people of good will to make this country work again, and Utah is fortunate to have such a man in Bob Bennett.

Years back, I think in 2000, I attended a house party at a neighbors' where a Democrat candidate for Congress was working to persuade a street full of Republicans to take a chance on him. He was clearly prepared for all the standard objections, and made a point to tell us that he had a concealed carry permit, thus immunizing himself from criticism about the Democrats position on gun control. He talked a good game, and so will any Republican challenger. They have the advantage of not having their views memorialized in recorded votes.

Bennett's record is hardly an embarrassment, and if you objected to the TARP (and I did), then you have to ask yourself what the obvious alternative was. I didn't see one.

What Bennett has demonstrated over his 18 year Senate career is an extraordinary ability to get things done without a lot of grandstanding. I suspect if he is reelected, his seniority will enable him to get a lot more things done for Utah and the nation.

Merrill Cook won the Utah 2nd district because he was 'conservative'. He was also totally unsuited to the role by temperament and judgment. We now have a five term Democrat incumbent in that seat and the prospect of another midnight raid on Utah lands to make sure he votes with his party and against the interests of his state. Elections have consequences, and buying a pig in a poke because of its oink is a pretty silly thing to do.