"It is not upon a person who is testifying to go out of his way on anything. It is the person who has to ask the questions."

So said Illinois Sen. Roland W. Burris, in explaining how it was that his failure to share -- with a legislative impeachment panel -- his conversation with former Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich's brother Rob should not be considered evidence he lied to the panel.

I wasn't there when he was sworn in before that legislative panel, but every time I've witnessed the swearing-in of a witness before similar panels, the oath is always the same: The witness swears to "tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth."

"It's a wonderful country, this America. It's called a secret ballot," former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge said Thursday -- as he refused to pledge his support to former Congressman Pat Toomey over recent Republican-turned-Democratic incumbent Arlen Specter for his homestate's 2010 Senate race.

Ridge's comment came in response to this question posed by MSNBC's Chris Matthews: "If you had to vote between Toomey, the conservative Republican, or Specter, the ex-Republican, who would you vote for?"

With his refusal, Tom Ridge made clear that he really is through with electoral politics -- because he'll never, ever earn the support of conservative Republicans again.

Sadly, I wish I could say Ridge's refusal to back Toomey is inexplicable.

But it's not.

With former Governor Tom Ridge's announcement that he will not be a candidate for the Republican nomination for the U. S. Senate in Pennsylvania next year, the Keystone State's playing field has shifted again.

About which, some thoughts:

First, props, please, to Pat Toomey's nascent Senate campaign.

Beginning earlier this week, opposition research began to show up in various conservative media outlets, all of which was aimed at making Ridge and his allies understand that a race against Toomey for the GOP nomination wouldn't be the cakewalk some recruiters and/or supporters were no doubt telling him it would be.

Will Republicans wage war on ideological grounds against President Obama's nominee to replace retiring Supreme Court Associate Justice David H. Souter?

That certainly seems to be what they're preparing for, based on this senator's statement that's being emailed around:

See if you can guess who's speaking:

"If the president uses ideology in deciding whom to nominate to the bench, the Senate, as part of its responsibility to advise and consent, should do the same in deciding whom to confirm. Pretending that ideology doesn't matter -- or, even worse, doesn't exist -- is exactly the opposite of what the Senate should do."

The 2010 re-election campaign of Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., has paid to air $100,000 worth of attack ads against Pat Toomey -- a former Republican congressman and current president of the conservative Club for Growth, who six years ago challenged Specter in a GOP primary and now has indicated he's ready for a rematch.

If you know of a precedent for going on the attack that way against someone who isn't in the race yet, let me know, because I don't know of one.

The nascent Toomey camp responded fast and hard, dismissing Specter's charges as false, and getting corroboration from the neutrals at FactCheck.org that Specter's ads were inaccurate.