“House Speaker Dennis Hastert has asked Rep. Bob Ney (R-OH) to step down from his post as chairman of the House Administration Committee,” Hotline reports. Details on Ney’s connection to Abramoff here.

UPDATE: “According to GOP sources, Hastert and Ney have been holding talks this week, although the Ohio lawmaker has thus far declined to give up his gavel. … Although Hastert cannot unilaterally replace Ney in the House Administration post, he can ask for the Conference to vote to remove him [when it returns Feb. 2].”

John Tierney has joined the list of NY Times contributors to bemoan the plight of men who have no choice when it comes to a woman bearing or aborting their offspring. Claiming a gender-neutral approach, he supports spousal notification for abortion and birth.

Tierney argues that since woman have to go through the pregnancy or abortion, they also have “exclusive control over some forms of contraception.”

But he leaves out at least one form of contraception over which men most definitely have control — a condom. Federal research suggests that 70 percent of men are willing to use reliable contraceptives. Yet only 30 percent of contraception in the United States is male-based, including condoms, withdrawal, abstinence, and vasectomy.

Columnists such as Tierney consistently fail to criticize the fact that the development of other birth control methods for men has been painfully slow due to a lack of economic and commercial support. If Tierney wants to advocate for male reproductive choice, he should focus his energies there.

His current approach does nothing to address the systemic reasons for unintended pregnancy, and serve only to reinforce the stereotype that women, and their decisions, cannot be trusted. Naturally, in an ideal world, every woman would be able to discuss her pregnancy options with the man who impregnated her. But if she decides not to inform the father, can we not presume that she has good reasons for that decision?

The assertion that men should always be informed amounts to the outdated presumption that father knows best.

- Jessica Arons

“U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales will testify in a Senate hearing on the legal reasons behind a secret domestic eavesdropping operation approved by President George W. Bush after the September 11 attacks, a Justice Department official said on Friday.”

Maryland Gov. Robert Ehrlich said on CNBC yesterday. “That is absolutely incorrect. Wal-Mart has not hosted any fundraisers.” His press secretary explained “Wal-Mart was not the host, just one of many hosts” but was “unable to identify any other sponsors.”

To understand how the culture of corruption arose that now infects the leadership in Washington, DC, it is important to understand the origins and functions of the K Street Project. Below are some of the essential facts.

[Note: This information originally appeared in this morning's Progress Report, a daily email newsletter written by the authors of ThinkProgress. To sign-up and receive the news you care about, simply enter your email address in the box on the right-hand side of this page.]

In 1994, the right wing gained control over the House of Representatives on the strength of a series of reforms embodied in the so-called “Contract with America.” The contract ostensibly “aimed to restore the faith and trust of the American people in their government” and end the “cycle of scandal and disgrace” in government. A year later, then-Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-TX) was already plotting to breach that contract by undertaking a project to develop cozier relations with Washington, D.C. lobbyists.

High-minded policy goals would take a backseat in DeLay’s pay-to-play system where the success of lobbyists would be dictated not by how compelling a case they could make, but rather by how willing they would be to line the pockets of DeLay and his colleagues. Conceptualized as a tool for the right-wing preservation of power, the “K Street Strategy,” as it became known, created the culture in which Jack Abramoff’s criminal activity was encouraged and rewarded. Read more

Chris Matthews says illegally spying on Americans is “maybe … part of the job” of the president of the United States.

Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) is currently the front-runner in the race for House Majority Whip. Yesterday, Hotline wrote that “[m]ore than any other Republican lawmaker,” Cantor has “a personal reason to oppose Jack Abramoff and everything he represents.”

Abramoff secretly helped Cantor’s primary opponent in 2000.

Now Cantor’s campaign is trumpeting this line, calling him “the only candidate for leadership that Jack Abramoff and his gaming clients spent tens of thousands of dollars trying to beat.”

That’s the spin. Here are the facts: From 2000-2004, Cantor happily accepted $13,000 directly from Abramoff — no small sum. In 2003, the Virginia congressman developed a sudden interest in Louisiana gambling, and signed a letter aimed at helping one of Abramoff’s tribal clients.

Abramoff even hosted a $500-a-plate “sandwich-naming” fund-raising party for Cantor at the kosher deli Abramoff owned (the “Eric Cantor” was a roast beef on challah). The Forward sets the stage:

At the party, Abramoff built up Cantor, telling the Forward that the Virginia lawmaker would become “the party’s most visible liaison to Jewish groups and in my view will be an important liaison to conservatives and religious Christians.” …

In June 2003, the Forward disclosed that Cantor had neither paid for nor listed as a debt in his campaign finance filings the cost of the catering at the Stacks fund-raiser. Experts said that the failure to report the debt likely violated campaign finance laws. After the Forward reported the lapse, Cantor’s campaign obtained an invoice and quickly paid $1,732 for the event.

Does Cantor personally like Jack Abramoff? Probably not. Does he oppose “everything” Abramoff “represents”? Laughable.

The National Review isn’t alone. Just now on Fox News:

Even as the United States is mired in a costly and bloodly conflict in Iraq, the National Review’s Stanley Kurtz suggests it’s about time to declare war on Iran:

EVEN BLIX [Stanley Kurtz]
One interesting thing about this piece on Iran from the Independent (linked to on Drudge) is that Hans Blix himself is saying that Iran has nuclear intentions.

Given how close we are getting to war, it’s interesting that the blogosphere has still not woken up to this issue.

Without a doubt, Iran is a threat to the region and the world. But the article that Kurtz references discusses the possibility of strict economic sanctions against Iran, not war.

In fact, the Independent article notes “some analysts said it was a mistake by the Europeans and the Bush administration in recent days to use threatening language that could force Iran into even more extreme positions.”

Too often, the right is stuck in one gear in their approach to foreign policy: ultra-macho war mongering.

(Hair not included.) The Hill newspaper is keeping tabs on the race here. And if their tally is to be believed, your next Majority Leader will be Roy Blunt. The election is set for February 2nd so there’s time yet for Smokin’ John Boehner to gain some ground. (Also, dark horse John Shadegg threw his hat into the ring today.)