They are calling it the Manhattan Declaration, a 4,700-word manifesto reaching into scripture and signed by 148 Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical leaders. It was released this afternoon at a press conference in Washington, D.C., and is designed to draw a line in the sand across three issues they argue are non-negotiable despite the law: the sanctity of human life, the institution of marriage as being between a man and woman, and religious freedom.

Signers of the Declaration pledge to "...not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other anti-life act,” nor will signers “bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships” or “treat them as marriages.” The list of backers reads like a who’s who of the pro-life movement, and the document essentially argues that supporters of the movement deserve conscience rights.

If it's not Mike Bloomberg, it's his predecessor. The New York Daily News reports that Rudy Giuliani is going to run for the Senate in 2010 and that he may use that as a stepping stone to a presidential run in 2012. Over at The Atlantic Chris Good claims that "Giuliani will make a formidable Senate candidate, should he run—in fact, if he enters the race, he will likely become the frontrunner," noting that he polls ahead of incumbent Kirsten Gillibrand.

Repeat after me, punditariat: the mayoralty of New York is a stepping stone to nothing.

Exhibit A:

Consider, men and women of the jury

The evidence of displaced fury.

Rage flung like a prisoner’s feces

Against the walls.  The human species

Unique in all biology

Kills for ideology.

By Jeremy Herb

Between online gambling and the countless ESPN reruns of the World Series of Poker, poker has become a mainstream "sport." Gambling experts say 10 to 15 million Americans wager $100 billion on the internet each year, and more than 6,000 paid $10,000 to enter this year's World Series main event. The online gambling industry - made up of offshore companies - earns somewhere between $6 and $10 billion in the U.S. annually. But it's a poker game of politics, not cards, that will decide the fate of online gaming in the U.S.

The battle rests on a bill that was passed in the final hours of the 2006 Republican-controlled Congress, when Sen. Bill Frist tacked it onto a port security bill. The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (UIGEA) forbids banks from accepting illegal Internet gambling transactions. In essence, it prevents would be players from using their debit or credit cards-a standard for online payments-for Internet gambling. Those who support Internet gambling, led by House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, are making a final plea to the Treasury Department and Federal Reserve to push back the law for one year, giving them time to repeal it. In response, Sen. John Kyl and Rep. Spencer Bachus wrote a letter to Geithner and Bernanke urging them to enforce the Dec. 1 deadline. The Treasury and Fed have yet to make a decision, according to a Federal Reserve official.

If President Obama was looking for another way to differentiate himself from President Bush, he just found it. When it comes to sports, you might recall Bush as an avid mountain biker. He also showed off some lightening-quick reflexes that one time that would give him an edge in dodgeball, and certainly fencing. Obama’s forté so far has been shooting hoops. Now add to the list, football. Check out this PSA that will run during several football games on Thanksgiving Day that encourages kids to get more exercise. Between spliced footage of kids running and doing jumping jacks, Obama makes a cameo on the White House lawn, tossing around the old pigskin. An ordinary game of catch, right? Not quite. The whole spot comes off as rather moving, almost epic, but not because of Obama or his receiving skills. Producers slowed down the footage so much that a short-range pass from New Orleans’s Saints quarterback Drew Brees to Obama ends up looking like a Sports Center highlight. Then, add in some dramatic background music and the receiver-in-chief almost looks qualified for a Heisman. Of course that would be premature. First we would need to see his end-zone dance.

As his hopes of winning the congressional election in New York's 23rd district fade, conservative candidate Doug Hoffman is clearly getting desperate. Today he's blaming his loss on "ACORN, the unions, and the Democratic party" who he alleges, without a shred of evidence, tampered with votes to rig the election against him. Never mind that ACORN told David Weigel that they didn't have volunteers in the area, or that it largely operates in poor urban communities, which NY-23 is not. For conservatives, ACORN is shorthand for the evils of the left.

On the heels of that news, Public Policy Polling released this shocking nugget on its blog: "a 52% majority of GOP voters nationally think that ACORN stole the Presidential election for Barack Obama last year, with only 27% granting that he won it legitimately." Say what? More than half of Republican respondents believe the president was elected fraudulently! That's a stunningly high number. It's disturbing, not only as a demonstrable lack of faith in America's democracy but as an expression of wanton ignorance. Worse, it illustrates the effectiveness of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, et al., alongside a well-funded "Stop ACORN" campaign, in creating an atmosphere where unquestioned lies become received wisdom.

Yesterday, political strategist Mark McKinnon made the case that Sarah Palin's popularity could create an opening for New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg to run for president in 2012. Well, that's original. Too bad it's preposterous. Katie raises two of the correct counterpoints: Bloomberg is uninspiring, and his Wall Street background doesn't seem like such a strong suit these days. But, she says, "McKinnon's argument shouldn't be discounted, and my quibbles aren't insurmountable hurdles for someone like Bloomberg."

Actually, McKinnon's argument should be dismissed out of hand, as there is no rationale for a third-party candidacy on the political, or policy, merits.

While the Senate toned down the House's language on abortion restrictions, it may have ratcheted things up with another controversial reproductive-health issue: abstinence-only education. Sec. 2954 of the Senate health-reform bill, released Wednesday evening, restores funding for abstinence education. 

Their provision would restore a program called Title V, which, since the Welfare Reform Act of 1996, has allocated a yearly $50 million in grants to abstinence-only education programs. Obama let the program lapse in June, leaving some abstinence-only groups in dire straits. So in September, Sen. Orrin Hatch offered an amendment to restore Title V via heath-care reform, which (much to the outrage of liberal groups) just squeaked through the Senate Finance Committee with a 12–11 vote. A similar amendment, offered in the House by Rep. Terry Lee from Nebraska, died in committee.

Over at The Daily Beast today, political strategist Mark McKinnon makes a compelling argument for why the 2012 election could be tailor-made for NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg. McKinnon is one of the sharpest minds around when it comes to understanding the mood of the electorate. McKinnon knows how to sell winning candidates, which is why I think the case he builds for Bloomberg is a serious one. Bloomberg is a true centrist who has racked up a swag of political achievements in New York—and he has a ton of cash. Dropping $1 billion on a presidential campaign would barely cause a ripple in his ocean of Benjamins. And he appeals to the growing bloc of independent voters. But, after reading McKinnon's analysis, I've got a couple of lingering questions.

First, how will his background in financial services play to an electorate weary of Wall Street misadventures? To be sure, it's been a very long time since Bloomberg was directly involved in trading and banking. Most of his cash piled up when he started offering IT and media services to the financial sector. But Wall Street is already enough of a myth to most voters. They may not have the patience to distinguish between the greedy bankers who broke the economy and the folks that provided the information that helped them carry out the devastating deeds. They may just see a really, really, ridiculously rich guy who made his money on Wall Street.

As Sarah Palin’s book tour kicked off this morning, the debate continues to rage about what exactly she means for America and the Republican Party. This week’s NEWSWEEK takes a look at those questions, exploring the unique challenges posed by a would-be candidate both loved and loathed but almost nothing in between.

Our choice of a cover image this week has also stirred the debate. Yesterday, NEWSWEEK Editor Jon Meacham responded to critics of the photo, explaining the magazine’s policy, which is, and has always been, to choose the most interesting image available to us to illustrate the theme of the cover.

This morning, on the Today show, NEWSWEEK Managing Editor Daniel Klaidman further explained the editorial choice. “Since [Sarah Palin] has been on the national stage, there have been these questions about her gravitas and her seriousness. Sarah Palin has cultivated this image of a down-home, folksy, outdoorsy woman. And I'm not suggesting  it's not authentic, but there is a sense in which she understands that it resonates politically,” Klaidman told Today host Matt Lauer. “There are a lot of people who would see that image and say 'that’s Sarah Palin, that’s why she connects with people, there’s that authenticity.' I don’t think this is an image that is taken out of context, especially when you consider what the point of the story was: to raise these questions about her seriousness."

Watch the video here.

Perhaps as an antidote to Sarah Palin's media domination over the last two weeks, frequent Palin critic David Brooks offered on Thursday a different presidential contender for 2012: South Dakota Sen. John Thune. And Tuesday, Washington Post political guru Chris Cillizza picked up the tune. "For months—if not years—the Republican/conservative smart set has been looking for a fresh face on which to hang their hopes and dreams," Cillizza wrote. South Dakota Sen. John Thune may be that person."

Wait, really?

Brooks's rather guileless New York Times column doesn't make a compelling argument that Thune has anything new to offer, but simply that he is reliably conservative, affable, and not likely to say anything dumb:

His positions on the issues are unremarkable. He is down-the-line conservative on social, economic and foreign policy matters. What’s notable is the way he talks about the issues and jumps off from them ... He doesn’t have radical plans to cut the federal leviathan. He just wants to restrain the growth of government to bring deficits down. He doesn’t have ambitions to restructure the tax code. He just wants to lift burdens on small business.