Update: Oregon LOSES! The disgrace of Oregon in the Rose Bowl.

.
Update:

Karma being what it is, the Ducks qwacked up and lost to what was allegedly an inferior Ohio State team, 26-17.



Making it even better was Blount's late fumble that cost any chance of a win. He really COUGED IT!

Serves them right.

______________________________________________________

Unfortunately, Oregon will be playing in the Rose Bowl in a couple of hours.

I say unfortunately, because a football program without character and integrity shouldn't be playing anywhere, let alone in the Rose Bowl, and Oregon qualifies on both counts.

Oregon has a player by the name of LeGarrette Blount. Blount is a criminal... a thug... a punk who sucker-punched another player AFTER Oregon managed to lose to Boise State... and he managed to do it on national TV.



If he had an ounce of integrity, HE would have voluntarily left the Oregon Ducks BEFORE Oregon's coaches had the chance to take any action, one way or the other.

Of course, Blount SHOULD have been arrested on the spot; tried, convicted and sentenced to prison for his assault. You know, like any of US would be if any of US had just walked up to someone and smacked them in the face.

But no, the Ducks took a course of scamming some fake punishment for this guy... as if it came close to fitting the crime.

And now, this scum is going to play in the Rose Bowl.

Those running the program at Oregon who allowed this should be fired; the school administration that allowed this should be fired, and the governor who let this go on should be fired.

What is SUPPOSED to be the purpose of college athletics, anyway? Isn't it SUPPOSED to make those who play into better students... better people?

How did allowing an already suspended-once-this-year thug to remain on the team accomplish that? What kind of message did the complete mishandling of this nonsense send?

Where is all this concern coming from that to kick this punk off the team and out of school is somehow, as one moron put it,

But you have to wonder what would have become of Blount had he been completely removed from the team. You have to wonder whether he would have stayed in school, whether he would have graduated, how he would have reacted to having his entire life ripped away because of one incident.

Do we wonder that about robbers? How about drug dealers? Murderers? No?

Why not? What's the difference? This is a CRIME, no different than any other.

And his punishment?

Why, he gets to keep his scholarship and play in the Rose Bowl.

The Oregon Ducks are a disgrace and they make me sick.

In a discussion I had with an alum of many years ago who was a 4 year offensive tackle for the Ducks, I asked him about this and he told me "I liked it better when it was just football. It was a better program before any of us heard of big money or Nike. Now, I don't like it so much."

No truer words have ever been spoken, John. And the stench of this will follow this program around for a long, long, time.

It is my earnest hope that Ohio State humiliates Oregon today.

Because Oregon deserves it.
.

So: Megacasino developer has happen to him what he would do to us.

Poor David Barnett. Two restraining orders from two different women, and now it appears that another one has wrecked him.... precisely like he wants to wreck us.

Barnett, who has as much Cowlitz blood in him as my newly bought Cavalier King Charles Spaniel, is doing everything he can to ram a massive casino down our throats here in Clark County.

When he hasn't been busy channeling Chief Umtuch, he's been busy insulting, threatening and intimidating public officials smart enough to oppose his perfidy, save for those like democrat County Commissioner Steve Stuart, who Barnett bought for a paltry $100,000 back in 2005, and elected official wannabes like Pam Brokaw, who was the recipient (indirectly, of course) of over $100.000 MORE dollars in additional lame efforts to buy ANOTHER county commissioner (democrat, of course) that blew up in his face when Brokaw was beaten by Republican Commissioner Tom Mielke.

Barnett has run onto hard financial times, lately; problems that have kept him from trying to buy elections in the most recent round... although the $40,000 channelled to Tim "The Liar" Leavitt through a New York City union smacks of the same kind of corruption that bought Steve Stuart; money laundered through Progressive Majority out of Washington, D.C.; a technique that DOES have the kind of fingerprints Barnett is known for. (I'm in the midst of investigating that right now with the help of the New York version of our PDC) on the surface, at least, even though another local blog claimed that Barnett played in a Snohomish County commissioner race (and lost there, as well) there is no evidence to support that any effort was made by Barnett against Somers... unless, of course, those making that effort failed to file with the state... and guys like Barnett would never do THAT, would they?

So, when news made it down here that this thug had been folded up like a pretzel and stuffed into intensive care at Harborview (I was only disappointed that karma hadn't dealt an even more severe blow, and taken him out of our picture permanently.) I could hardly be upset.

Those foaming at that mouth to get that criminal enterprise opened down here will feign anger at my insensitivity. And that is too damned bad.

Barnett and most of the thugs supporting him (particularly those who stand to get the big checks) have never lived in our community; do not live in our community; and never WILL live in our community; and will not have to suffer the many massive negative impacts this massive criminal enterprise will cause.

So, if he's in traction with tubes coming out of every orifice, I can't say I'm sorry about that, since that is precisely what he plans for SW Washington.

With any luck at all....

Casino developer injured in auto crash

Tuesday, November 17 | 1:19 p.m.

BY MICHAEL ANDERSEN
COLUMBIAN STAFF WRITER

Cowlitz casino developer David Barnett was in serious condition Tuesday afternoon after a Monday morning car crash.

Barnett, 49, was critically injured and unconscious after being thrown from the bed of a Toyota pickup at 6 a.m. Monday in Shoreline, police said.

No other vehicles were involved, the King County sheriff’s office said. The pickup’s female driver, 36, was uninjured.

The accident occurred five blocks from Barnett’s $1.3 million home on Puget Sound.

An emergency vehicle rushed Barnett to Harborview Medical Center in Seattle, said Sgt. John Urquhart of the sheriff’s office.

By Tuesday afternoon, his condition had improved from "critical" to "serious," according to a hospital spokeswoman, meaning Barnett’s life was not in immediate danger.

Detectives for the King County Sheriff’s Office were investigating the accident as a possible case of vehicular assault, Urquhart said.

That charge is used in cases of reckless driving or use of drugs or alcohol.

Urquhart described the pickup’s driver as Barnett’s "live-in roommate, whatever you want to call her."

He said a sample of her blood has been sent to a state lab and is likely to return in six to eight weeks.

More:

Just as I called it: Blount to return to football.

.
Originally posted on October 1.

The whole thing was a joke. I knew from the very beginning that these clowns were just going to wait for the dust to settle and bring this thug back onto the team.

You heard it here first: Blount will be back in uniform before the season is over, because, well, he's "suffered enough."

Why else would they want this clown to keep practicing with the team... keep hanging around them?

Those running the University of Oregon are amoral scum.

If Governor Kulongoski has an ounce of integrity, he'll fire the lot of them, from the head guy at the U of O who is obviously allowing this, all the way down to every coach on the team.

And Blount SHOULD have been expelled; PERMANENTLY, BEFORE he went to prison for assault.

Just exactly what the hell kind of message is this sending? What would the law have done to me if I had popped Blount in the mouth on the street? Why does Oregon believe in this double standard?

The entire school administration and football team staff should be fired if this thug is re-instated.
.

My take on Referendum 71.

.
Precisely like our strangely-silent-on-the-issue of Referendum 71 Cowardman, Brian Baird's reticence about his vote on the empty suit's health care overhaul, I'm not committing to voting for or against Referendum 71.

I have a take on the issue... some concerns brought about by the black letter discrimination contained within the Referendum, discrimination that seems to be perfectly acceptable on the part of R-71 campaign supporters.

One of the more thuggish supporters of the many of that ilk, wrote this just this morning:

To enter a domestic partnership in Washington, at least one partner must be 62 or older, unless both partners are of the same sex.

This is, of course, blatantly discriminatory on its face. And the rank hypocrisy of many R 71 supporters; whining and sniveling about discrimination on one hand, blithely ignoring the statutory discrimination inculcated in R 71 on the other, concerns me.

Rank hypocrisy is rarely a basis to support legislation. The obvious discrimination to those younger than 62 is reason enough to vote against this thing for the same reasons those trumpeting this issue want us to vote for it.

I've always been troubled by the idea of trading one level of discrimination for another. If, as we're told, gays are discriminated against and R 71 would, in part, address that; why is it OK for this SAME legislation to institutionalize discrimination to the largest segment of the entire population?

I'll tell you why.

This Referendum isn't about "discrimination." It's about power.

Are those 62 and older discriminated against? No? Then why is this aspect of this sorry piece of work included here?

Not because it has anything to do with their discrimination; on the contrary, it's a cynical ploy by the homosexual lobby to desperately woo the support of seniors... those least likely to support this kind of legal extortion.

I, personally, oppose the concept of legislating gay marriage. I see it this way:

Is this a bad time to point out that our rights are not determined by our sexuality?

A gay male has EVERY right I do. He can marry any female old enough, unmarried, of sound mind, etc, etc.... just like me.

So what's the big deal?

Yeah, yeah.... I know... it's not the same thing for those supporting gay marriage.

Unfortunately, however, rights are rights: and applying the term "right" means that while *I* can marry someone of the opposite sex, for example, it only becomes discriminatory if someone else can't do EXACTLY the same thing.

And by "exactly," I mean EXACTLY. If I can't do something, and you can't do something, then it's not discriminatory. If I CAN do something; and you can't do EXACTLY the same thing, then it IS discriminatory.

A case in point is the debate about insurance companies being required to provide birth control because many of them provided viagra or some such.

Women threw a fit. But no one stopped to look at the issue: Viagra or something like it is used to treat a medical condition so that something works properly. Birth control is the exact opposite: it is used as a treatment to STOP something from working properly.

The differences are both clear and obvious... precisely like the issue of gay marriage.

These insurance companies didn't cover birth control for EITHER sex, thus no discrimination was taking place. But, like the gay marriage kerfuffle, politics determined, based on a completely fallacious discrimination argument, that insurance companies would be REQUIRED to provide birth control to women.

Not because it was right. Not because it was Constitutional. Not because it was discriminatory... but because women whined, sniveled and bitched like cut cats until they got what they wanted.

Sound familiar?

Correspondingly, I don't have the non-existent "right" to marry someone of the same sex. That someone gay also doesn't have that right is called "equality."

And that's the problem with this entire argument from the gay perspective.

They demand a right that isn't a right; that is, they demand the ability to marry someone of the same sex, when that "right" doesn't exist.

As a hetero, I have no problem denying homosexuals the "ability" to marry the same sex, since it is not a "right." I don't have that ability... homosexuals don't have that ability... so what's the problem?

And, BTW, I don't need to go to the Bible to determine this... human rights were around, if not in place, before there was a Bible. This is not a moral issue for me; this is a legal issue.

Those demanding the ability to engage in gay marriage should feel free to file an initiative, or whatever, to get the laws changed.

Society makes the determination as to which norms are practiced. If gays want an ability that straights do not have, then they should seek society's approval to gain it. If they can't get our approval, well, that's just too damned bad.

Meanwhile, I reserve judgment, just exactly like our Cowardman, on how I'm going to vote on this matter.

There. See? It's easy when you think about it.
.

Benjamin Netanyahu's UN Speech (full text)

.
This is the speech of a leader.

Unlike the cowering slime unfortunately leading the United States today, Mr. Netanyahu is extremely well qualified and experienced to lead the nation of Israel against all enemies, including the current occupant of the White House today.

Would that we as a nation could be led by someone with the vision, the strength, the knowledge... the understanding of the dark reality that surrounds us... a reality furthered by the cowardice of our Nation's leadership today.

I fear for our country. I fear for my neighbors. I fear for my children, because we are led by the arrogant, short-sighted, ignorant cowards who ignore lesson after lesson of history as if the old saw that tells us, accurately, that we MUST learn from that history or become doomed to repeat it, didn't exist.

In that respect, I envy the people of Israel. And in that same respect, I am ashamed that democracy could be so successfully perverted as it was here in the United States November last.

_____________________________________________________________


Friday, September 25, 2009
Netanyahu's UN Speech (full text)

Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen,

Nearly 62 years ago, the United Nations recognized the right of the Jews, an ancient people 3,500 years-old, to a state of their own in their ancestral homeland. I stand here today as the Prime Minister of Israel, the Jewish state, and I speak to you on behalf of my country and my people.

The United Nations was founded after the carnage of World War II and the horrors of the Holocaust. It was charged with preventing the recurrence of such horrendous events. Nothing has undermined that central mission more than the systematic assault on the truth.

Yesterday the President of Iran stood at this very podium, spewing his latest anti-Semitic rants. Just a few days earlier, he again claimed that the Holocaust is a lie. Last month, I went to a villa in a suburb of Berlin called Wannsee. There, on January 20, 1942, after a hearty meal, senior Nazi officials met and decided how to exterminate the Jewish people. The detailed minutes of that meeting have been preserved by successive German governments. Here is a copy of those minutes, in which the Nazis issued precise instructions on how to carry out the extermination of the Jews. Is this a lie?

A day before I was in Wannsee, I was given in Berlin the original construction plans for the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp. Those plans are signed by Hitler's deputy, Heinrich Himmler himself. Here is a copy of the plans for Auschwitz-Birkenau, where one million Jews were murdered. Is this too a lie?

This June, President Obama visited the Buchenwald concentration camp. Did President Obama pay tribute to a lie? And what of the Auschwitz survivors whose arms still bear the tattooed numbers branded on them by the Nazis? Are those tattoos a lie? One-third of all Jews perished in the conflagration. Nearly every Jewish family was affected, including my own. My wife's grandparents, her father's two sisters and three brothers, and all the aunts, uncles and cousins were all murdered by the Nazis. Is that also a lie?

Yesterday, the man who calls the Holocaust a lie spoke from this podium. To those who refused to come here and to those who left this room in protest, I commend you. You stood up for moral clarity and you brought honor to your countries. But to those who gave this Holocaust-denier a hearing, I say on behalf of my people, the Jewish people, and decent people everywhere: Have you no shame? Have you no decency? A mere six decades after the Holocaust, you give legitimacy to a man who denies that the murder of six million Jews took place and pledges to wipe out the Jewish state. What a disgrace! What a mockery of the charter of the United Nations!

Perhaps some of you think that this man and his odious regime threaten only the Jews. You're wrong. History has shown us time and again that what starts with attacks on the Jews eventually ends up engulfing many others. This Iranian regime is fueled by an extreme fundamentalism that burst onto the world scene three decades ago after lying dormant for centuries.

In the past thirty years, this fanaticism has swept the globe with a murderous violence and cold-blooded impartiality in its choice of victims. It has callously slaughtered Moslems and Christians, Jews and Hindus, and many others. Though it is comprised of different offshoots, the adherents of this unforgiving creed seek to return humanity to medieval times.

Wherever they can, they impose a backward regimented society where women, minorities, gays or anyone not deemed to be a true believer is brutally subjugated. The struggle against this fanaticism does not pit faith against faith nor civilization against civilization.

It pits civilization against barbarism, the 21st century against the 9th century, those who sanctify life against those who glorify death.

The primitivism of the 9th century ought to be no match for the progress of the 21st century. The allure of freedom, the power of technology, the reach of communications should surely win the day. Ultimately, the past cannot triumph over the future. And the future offers all nations magnificent bounties of hope. The pace of progress is growing exponentially.

It took us centuries to get from the printing press to the telephone, decades to get from the telephone to the personal computer, and only a few years to get from the personal computer to the internet.

What seemed impossible a few years ago is already outdated, and we can scarcely fathom the changes that are yet to come. We will crack the genetic code. We will cure the incurable. We will lengthen our lives. We will find a cheap alternative to fossil fuels and clean up the planet.

I am proud that my country Israel is at the forefront of these advances by leading innovations in science and technology, medicine and biology, agriculture and water, energy and the environment. These innovations the world over offer humanity a sunlit future of unimagined promise.

But if the most primitive fanaticism can acquire the most deadly weapons, the march of history could be reversed for a time. And like the belated victory over the Nazis, the forces of progress and freedom will prevail only after an horrific toll of blood and fortune has been exacted from mankind. That is why the greatest threat facing the world today is the marriage between religious fanaticism and the weapons of mass destruction.

The most urgent challenge facing this body is to prevent the tyrants of Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Are the member states of the United Nations up to that challenge? Will the international community confront a despotism that terrorizes its own people as they bravely stand up for freedom?

Will it take action against the dictators who stole an election in broad daylight and gunned down Iranian protesters who died in the streets choking in their own blood? Will the international community thwart the world's most pernicious sponsors and practitioners of terrorism?

Above all, will the international community stop the terrorist regime of Iran from developing atomic weapons, thereby endangering the peace of the entire world?

The people of Iran are courageously standing up to this regime. People of goodwill around the world stand with them, as do the thousands who have been protesting outside this hall. Will the United Nations stand by their side?

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The jury is still out on the United Nations, and recent signs are not encouraging. Rather than condemning the terrorists and their Iranian patrons, some here have condemned their victims. That is exactly what a recent UN report on Gaza did, falsely equating the terrorists with those they targeted.

For eight long years, Hamas fired from Gaza thousands of missiles, mortars and rockets on nearby Israeli cities. Year after year, as these missiles were deliberately hurled at our civilians, not a single UN resolution was passed condemning those criminal attacks. We heard nothing - absolutely nothing - from the UN Human Rights Council, a misnamed institution if there ever was one.

In 2005, hoping to advance peace, Israel unilaterally withdrew from every inch of Gaza. It dismantled 21 settlements and uprooted over 8,000 Israelis. We didn't get peace. Instead we got an Iranian backed terror base fifty miles from Tel Aviv. Life in Israeli towns and cities next to Gaza became a nightmare. You see, the Hamas rocket attacks not only continued, they increased tenfold. Again, the UN was silent.

Finally, after eight years of this unremitting assault, Israel was finally forced to respond. But how should we have responded? Well, there is only one example in history of thousands of rockets being fired on a country's civilian population. It happened when the Nazis rocketed British cities during World War II. During that war, the allies leveled German cities, causing hundreds of thousands of casualties. Israel chose to respond differently. Faced with an enemy committing a double war crime of firing on civilians while hiding behind civilians, Israel sought to conduct surgical strikes against the rocket launchers.

That was no easy task because the terrorists were firing missiles from homes and schools, using mosques as weapons depots and ferreting explosives in ambulances. Israel, by contrast, tried to minimize casualties by urging Palestinian civilians to vacate the targeted areas.

We dropped countless flyers over their homes, sent thousands of text messages and called thousands of cell phones asking people to leave. Never has a country gone to such extraordinary lengths to remove the enemy's civilian population from harm's way.

Yet faced with such a clear case of aggressor and victim, who did the UN Human Rights Council decide to condemn? Israel. A democracy legitimately defending itself against terror is morally hanged, drawn and quartered, and given an unfair trial to boot.

By these twisted standards, the UN Human Rights Council would have dragged Roosevelt and Churchill to the dock as war criminals. What a perversion of truth. What a perversion of justice.

Delegates of the United Nations,

Will you accept this farce?

Because if you do, the United Nations would revert to its darkest days, when the worst violators of human rights sat in judgment against the law-abiding democracies, when Zionism was equated with racism and when an automatic majority could declare that the earth is flat.

If this body does not reject this report, it would send a message to terrorists everywhere: Terror pays; if you launch your attacks from densely populated areas, you will win immunity. And in condemning Israel, this body would also deal a mortal blow to peace. Here's why.

When Israel left Gaza, many hoped that the missile attacks would stop. Others believed that at the very least, Israel would have international legitimacy to exercise its right of self-defense. What legitimacy? What self-defense?

The same UN that cheered Israel as it left Gaza and promised to back our right of self-defense now accuses us - my people, my country - of war crimes. And for what? For acting responsibly in self-defense. What a travesty!

Israel justly defended itself against terror. This biased and unjust report is a clear-cut test for all governments. Will you stand with Israel or will you stand with the terrorists?

We must know the answer to that question now. Now and not later. Because if Israel is again asked to take more risks for peace, we must know today that you will stand with us tomorrow. Only if we have the confidence that we can defend ourselves can we take further risks for peace.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

All of Israel wants peace.

Any time an Arab leader genuinely wanted peace with us, we made peace. We madeeace with Egypt led by Anwar Sadat. We made peace with Jordan led by King Hussein. And if the Palestinians truly want peace, I and my government, and the people of Israel, will make peace. But we want a genuine peace, a defensible peace, a permanent peace. In 1947, this body voted to establish two states for two peoples - a Jewish state and an Arab state. The Jews accepted that resolution. The Arabs rejected it.

We ask the Palestinians to finally do what they have refused to do for 62 years: Say yes to a Jewish state. Just as we are asked to recognize a nation-state for the Palestinian people, the Palestinians must be asked to recognize the nation state of the Jewish people. The Jewish people are not foreign conquerors in the Land of Israel. This is the land of our forefathers.

Inscribed on the walls outside this building is the great Biblical vision of peace: "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation. They shall learn war no more." These words were spoken by the Jewish prophet Isaiah 2,800 years ago as he walked in my country, in my city, in the hills of Judea and in the streets of Jerusalem.

We are not strangers to this land. It is our homeland. As deeply connected as we are to this land, we recognize that the Palestinians also live there and want a home of their own. We want to live side by side with them, two free peoples living in peace, prosperity and dignity.

But we must have security. The Palestinians should have all the powers to govern themselves except those handful of powers that could endanger Israel.

That is why a Palestinian state must be effectively demilitarized. We don't want another Gaza, another Iranian backed terror base abutting Jerusalem and perched on the hills a few kilometers from Tel Aviv.

We want peace. I believe such a peace can be achieved. But only if we roll back the forces of terror, led by Iran, that seek to destroy peace, eliminate Israel and overthrow the world order. The question facing the international community is whether it is prepared to confront those forces or accommodate them.

Over seventy years ago, Winston Churchill lamented what he called the "confirmed unteachability of mankind," the unfortunate habit of civilized societies to sleep until danger nearly overtakes them.

Churchill bemoaned what he called the "want of foresight, the unwillingness to act when action will be simple and effective, the lack of clear thinking, the confusion of counsel until emergency comes, until self-preservation strikes its jarring gong."

I speak here today in the hope that Churchill's assessment of the "unteachability of mankind" is for once proven wrong. I speak here today in the hope that we can learn from history -- that we can prevent danger in time. In the spirit of the timeless words spoken to Joshua over 3,000 years ago, let us be strong and of good courage. Let us confront this peril, secure our future and, God willing, forge an enduring peace for generations to come.

"Hashem Oz LeAmo Yiten, Hashem Yivarech et Amo Bashalom."

May G-d give strength to his people, may G-d bless his people with peace.
.

"Change we can believe in" (V) The Geithner Paradigm in action: Daschle apologizes...

.
...For breaking criminal laws that would have seen any of the rest of us being "Wesley Sniped."

As predictable as sunrise, the continued lowering of the bar by the Corrupt Obama Administration goes on with the exorcism of those pesky legal demons from Sen. Tom Daschles' closet skeleton collection. And today, we moved from Geithner's "honest mistake" to the more (Duh, dun, duuuuuuuuuun) sober "serious mistake" level.

Lacking even a pretense of requiring integrity and character from any of his nominees, Mr. Obama continues to show the same honor that made him so identified with stellar characters like Ayers, Wright and Rezco.

The left fails to utter a peep. The slime of the Senate will dutifully go along with the selection of this criminally and ethically-challenged waste of skin; the BOR's will most likely vote for him because to this point, backbone and Senate Republicans have rarely been seen in the same room together at the same time.

The deafening silence from those same elements who so loudly and passionately condemned President Bush and his Cabinet for 8 years for doing far less... the rank, reeking hypocrisy of it all.

Clearly, we'll be here no more of this "most ethical Administration in history" nonsense from Mr. Obama or any of those shilling for him.

My government disgusts me. All this "Hope!" and "Change!" crap... when our president is acting like Al Capone. Even the story headline reeks of cynicism: Obama considers Daschle issue "serious."

I put the word "serious" within quotes, because the headline is an obvious lie.

Good God... if this man had even lived up to a quarter of the promise... and now? He's a thug just like the thugs he wants on his Cabinet, a place where honor, integrity and ethics have no room at the table; a place where massive payoffs are the order of the day... a place where this man will put us so far into debt that generations from now, our children will be paying for his folly.

Originally published Monday, February 2, 2009 at 11:25 AM

Comments (109) E-mail article Print view

White House: Obama considers Daschle issue serious

The White House says President Barack Obama considers Tom Daschle's tax troubles to be a "very serious" matter. But the president's spokesman says Daschle remains the right person to lead the Health and Human Services Department.

By KEVIN FREKING

Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON —

The White House says President Barack Obama considers Tom Daschle's tax troubles to be a "very serious" matter. But the president's spokesman says Daschle remains the right person to lead the Health and Human Services Department.

Daschle expressed remorse on Monday about failing to pay more than $120,000 in back taxes. And Obama says he "absolutely" stands by him.

But White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said that Daschle had made a "serious mistake" that he then fixed. Gibbs said the White House is "not insensitive" to the news of the unpaid taxes by a potential Cabinet secretary.

Gibbs said that if Daschle is confirmed he will closely follow the ethical guidelines and rules of the administration.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.

WASHINGTON (AP) - Trying to salvage his nomination, Tom Daschle apologized Monday for delinquent tax payments as President Barack Obama and a top Senate chairman stood by him as the choice to lead the Health and Human Services Department.

More: