First of all, thanks to all of RWN's guest bloggers for doing such a great job. Make sure to check out their websites:

Patrick Hynes from Ankle Biting Pundits
Danny Carlton from Jack Lewis
La Shawn Barber from La Shawn Barber's Corner
Lorie Byrd from Wizbang

Next up, let me remind you that on Monday, since it will be a holiday, RWN will be running retro posts. Then, on Tuesday, RWN will be back on a normal schedule.

That being said, have a great holiday week-end, consider this to be an open thread, and enjoy the links below.

Rightroots

The Absurd Report

Biblical Womanhood

Blogs For Bush

Chicago Boyz

Coldheartedtruth

David Limbaugh

Diggers Realm

The Dread Pundit Bluto

Game: Fracture

Murdoc Online

News Beat 1

Pierre Legrand's Pink Flamingo Bar And Grill

Proud To Be Canadian

Sound Politics

I am a huge fan of David Limbaugh's columns, but his latest is my all time favorite. I really, really wish I had written it. Please, if you only read one column this weekend, read this one. (If you read more than one, please read my Plame piece next.)

If you are a supporter of the mission in Iraq, and interested in the truth, this one will have you saying "Amen."

...Democrats are the ones politicizing the war and who view it exclusively through a partisan prism. When they stop hyperventilating, they might consider that it is the commander in chief's duty to rally popular support for the troops and their mission. Of course, the president's task wouldn't be nearly so urgent if Democrats hadn't been undermining the war effort in Iraq almost since it began with a steady stream of disinformation, focusing on the false charge that he lied us into war.

They explain their sudden affinity for the truth -- in contrast to their cynically dismissive attitude toward it during the Clinton years -- as a matter of the singular importance of the war. While lying per se isn't particularly wrong under their relativist standards -- and lying about adulterous relations is even virtuous to protect one's family -- lying about war, at least by a Republican president, is so evil it pretty much drives them to the obnoxious Christian state of moral absolutism.

This distinction is interesting given their own pattern of deceit concerning all aspects of the war. Let's review, shall we?

-- They said Bush attacked Iraq "unilaterally," when he built a coalition of over 30 nations, including Great Britain and tried hard to persuade the rest of Old Europe to join. To their discredit, they refused. A unilateralist wouldn't have bothered.

-- They deny Iraq is part of the war on terror, never mind that terrorists demonstrably disagree. Never mind that the Bush Doctrine clearly defines the enemy to include terrorist-sponsoring nations, like Saddam's Iraq.
...
-- They say Bush called Iraq an "imminent threat," when he called it a "great and gathering threat." The Bush Doctrine called for attacking threatening nations before they could become an imminent threat, when it would be too late. But some anti-war Democrats, like Jay Rockefeller, did call Iraq an "imminent threat."

-- They say Bush's sole reason to attack Iraq was its WMD. In fact, David Horowitz notes there were 23 "whereas" clauses in the Iraq War resolution, only two of which mentioned WMD and 12 of which concerned Saddam's violations of U.N. resolutions.

This is cross-posted at Wizbang, where there is lots of other good stuff too, so please click here.

Well, this race, the 2006 off-year race to control Congress, is about many things. According to Susan Page and Jill Lawrence in USA TODAY, this race is about, “voters' unease over Iraq, jobs and health care and a sense that the nation is on the wrong track.” And if those “moral values” happen to creep into the debate, well: “Some conservatives press views that are unpopular with a majority of Americans.”

As I have observed elsewhere, ever since the book closed on the 2004 election, pollsters stopped asking about “moral values." Nevertheless, we know “moral values voters” still exist, because the Democrats are working hard (in vain) to win them over, and well, they’re having big party later on in the month. But hey, one man’s myth is another man’s margin of victory.

I think pollsters leave “moral values” off their questionnaires because they know it will recalibrate the respondents’ frames of mind. Contrary to David Brooks’ analysis of “the facts”:

Much of the misinterpretation of this election derives from a poorly worded question in the exit polls. When asked about the issue that most influenced their vote, voters were given the option of saying "moral values." But that phrase can mean anything - or nothing. Who doesn't vote on moral values? If you ask an inept question, you get a misleading result.

…“moral values” can’t “mean anything.” Nor did it mean “nothing” in 2004. Brooks is a sharp cookie. Is he really confused about what “moral values voters” were saying? I mean, 82% of them voted the same way (for Bush), so it seems reasonably clear they were of the same mind on something, and it wasn’t the price of gas or global warming.

Instead, if pollsters asked about a respondent’s attitudes about “moral values,” it would immediately trigger in the respondent’s head images of law breaking civic officials who “marry” gay couples, angry feminists who wave “Abortion Yes!” banners, Hollywood filth and other cultural rubbish. And that would immediately in turn open up and let escape their inner rightwing nut. At that point it’s good bye Democrat advantage in your survey.

But that doesn’t sell, I suppose. So let’s just forget about “moral values” and the “mythical” voters of the same name … well, at least until the day after Election Day, when we rediscover that they do, indeed, exist. And they’re not wringing their hands over gas prices and healthcare.

Patrick Hynes is the proprietor of Ankle Biting Pundits and the author of In Defense of the Religious Right.

John Hawkins sometimes quotes outrageous statements he finds posted at The Democratic Underground. Some of those quotes are pretty shocking, but since the posters are anonymous I sometimes wonder if they are all written by crazed liberals or if some are left by jokesters. I find that preferable to believing there are so many crazy people out there.

This blog post from Robert at Thorn Tree is on the front page, though, not hidden in the comments section or part of a message board. The post is in reaction to the news of a film depicting the assassination of George Bush, which I blogged at Wizbang yesterday.

Several comments to make on this:

First of all to all the lefty bloggers out there falling all over yourselves to say "Of course, I wouldn't want the president killed", shut the hell up. You know you would do a little dance if someone whacked that idiot. You just want to appear "above" such a thing.

Secondly, the only real problem I have is that he's gunned down. Too quick. A flash of pain and then the big dirt nap. For Bush I would prefer bone cancer, flesh-eating bacteria, or perhaps one of those deadly four hour erections we keep hearing about.

Alright, seriously. I would prefer Bush spend the rest of his life in a cell, tried and convicted of war crimes, but somehow I just don't think it's going to happen. So I can only hope for him to suffer in some other way.

Sad that I've been reduced to wishing great physical agony and death to my fellow humans but I truly believe that he deserves to suffer. Many right bloggers refer to my kind of hatred as Bush Derangement Syndrome, but I prefer to call it a yearning for karmic justice. This president has overseen the most criminal, arrogantly stupid, and homicidal administration in American history. He, and his partners in crime, deserve whatever horrors that karma may have in store for them.

As for Bush's cheerleaders on the Internet, such as the creepy Anchoress (who, by the way, is another right wing blogger that doesn't allow comments because she's such a coward) I can only hope that someone they care for deeply dies in one of Bush's wars of choice.

That seems fair.

Been saving up lots of dark thoughts. Can you tell?

See D.J. Drummond's related post here.

This is cross-posted at Wizbang, which you should be visiting daily if you are not already.

Hey, RWN readers. I'm guest-blogging for John today. Hope you enjoy my scribblings. - La Shawn Barber

• Part I --- How to Avoid a Blogosphere Scandal: Disclose!
• Part II --- How to Avoid a Blogosphere Scandal: Don’t Plagiarize!

I’m not a big fan of the anonymous (or pseudonymous) blogger or commenter.

I blog under my name, spreading controversial ideas and unorthodox opinions that people like me usually don't write about or utter in public.

Every now and then something I write generates a wave of dissent throughout the blogosphere. A couple of weeks ago, I endured the “wrath” of homosexual bloggers and commenters because I dared use the word homosexual in a less than favorable context. I used to think black liberal dissenters were the worst sort. I was wrong on so many levels. Tolerance is a word entirely devoid of meaning in this PC age, and those demanding it of others the loudest don't practice it themselves. Hypocrisy and irony come to mind.

Last year I was called “anti-Catholic” because I made biblical assertions in reference to the recently departed Roman Catholic pope (at the request of Catholic readers, ironically), and several bloggers "de-linked" me. And the usual “self-hater,” “race traitor” rhetoric, almost always sent by people using obviously phony names, appears in my inbox from time to time, though less frequently than it used to.

It takes nerve to write what I write and use my real name online, a virtual world inhabited by all sorts, including perverts, maniacs, and just plain old bored fools who get off cyber-harassing others. Don't take it personally, anonymous bloggers and commenters, but my online experiences have biased me against anonymity, especially from commenters who do nothing but criticize my views.

For these and other reasons, I admire people who blog under their real names. But I understand why some don't or can't use their real names. Perhaps they’re whistleblowing employees trying to expose nefarious acts and avoid reprisal at the same time. Others may be concerned about their physical safety or worried that an idiot scoundrel will post their home addresses on the web. Some bloggers use their blogs as online journals, writing about their jobs, relationships, and other issues, and don't want to be fired or hurt friends and family.

Although I believe people should stand behind what they say, write, and do with their real names, there are exceptions, of course. But one thing that's unacceptable is taking on a different persona with the intent to deceive.

From Phyllis Schlafly's Safe-Not Sorry...

For the privilege of building 1,700 TFX fighter planes, bids were submitted in January 1962 by two manufacturers: the Boeing Company and General Dynamics Corporation. Much suspense and anticipation built up during the many months the decision was pending, because whoever won the contract would get the choicest plum in the history of US Federal spending.

Several hundred top technical Air Force and Navy experts spent 275,000 man-hours studying the competing designs. As a result, the Pentagon Source Selection Board, composed of the most experience military experts, unanimously recommended the Boeing plane as better and cheaper. No evaluation group at any level ever recommended the General Dynamics plane....

On the basis of past performance Boeing had a better record of producing military planes within its bids than General Dynamics. Boeing had built  the C-97, B-47, KC-135, and B-52 at an average of 1.1% under it's bids. General Dynamics had built the F-102, F-106, and B-58 at an average of 4.8% over its bids....

The Pentagon had asked for four separate design submissions from the two companies. [Albert W. Blackburn of the Office of Defense Research and Engineering] proved that after each of the four design submissions (January, May, June and September, 1962), Boeing was unanimously rated both better and cheaper. He made clear that the Pentagon request for the fourth submission was to give general Dynamics additional time to try to match the superior Boeing design. Blackburn wrote:

"All the imaginative aerodynamic fixes devised by Boeing in their third submission to satisfy the very difficult Navy maneuver requirements somehow found their way into the final General Dynamics design to a degree of similarity that would hardly be coincidental"

In other words the Pentagon gave General Dynamics every advantage, and someone even leaked "the superior design features submitted in a rival bid by the Boeing Company."

But some factors other than quality, design and national security were at play...

The General Dynamics bid said that TFX would be built in Fort Worth, Texas, home state of Vice president Lyndon Johnson (24 electoral votes), with the Navy version built in New York (45 electoral votes). Additionally, what is not generally known, General Dynamics was controlled by the chairman of its Executive Committee and largest single stockholder, Henry Crown of Chicago, one of the most powerful financial figures in the Democrat machine in Illinois (27 electoral votes). The Boeing Company, on the other hand, is headquartered in Seattle, Washington (only 9 electoral votes), and if Boeing had received the TFX contract, the plane would have been built in Wichita, Kansas (only 8 electoral votes)

In the very close presidential election of 1960, Washington and Kansas had gone for Richard Nixon--so obviously they were not eligible for federal favors....

Texas, Illinois and New York, however, presented quite a different picture. In 1960, all three had voted for the Kennedy-Johnson ticket. Even more important, Texas and Illinois were the locations of shocking election frauds which put those states in the Kennedy-Johnson column by the narrowest of margins....

In a contract the size of TFX, there was enough money to take care of everyone who needed to be taken care of. Nowhere in the United States could political money be used as effectively as through the Texas and Illinois machines....

Secretary McNamara knew that the reelection of the Kennedy-Johnson Administration was crucial to keeping his job as Secretary of defense. having enjoyed the second most powerful office in our country, he wasn't about to give it up....

The TFX award to general Dynamics was the political payoff to the machines which delivered the vote to the Kennedy-Johnson ticket in 1960. More than that, it was the guarantee that Texas, Illinois and New York would deliver again in 1964.

Obviously the bid went to general Dynamics. Blackburn, a former Marine combat pilot, a former North American Aviation test pilot, and had at the time a Master's Degree in aeronautical engineering from M.I.T.,  actually resigned, rather than agree with McNamara about the choice of GD over Boeing. 

My dad worked for Boeing at the time, and he tells me they were pretty ticked off. He laughed, remembering that some Boeing employee started spelling Texas, "TFXas" in their mail, and laughed even more when the Post Office delivered it that way. In spite of their sterling performance, Boeing refused to bid on any military projects for quite some time, which, of course, robbed the nation of a valuable asset during a time that it was much needed--during the Vietnam War.

As of the writing of Schlafly's book (1967) the TFX was two year behind schedule and the cost per plane had risen from $2.9 million per plane to over $8 million per plane.

Interesting, you're probably saying, but what does this have to do with anything today?

Reuters reported Wednesday...

The United States begins its next step in human space flight with the announcement by NASA on Thursday of a contractor to design and build spaceships to fly to the moon.

Lockheed Martin Corp and a partnership of Northrop Grumman Corp. and Boeing Co are vying for the work, estimated to be worth more than $18 billion over the next decade.

...critics and government advisors have raised questions, particularly over the multibillion award to build spaceships before technical and financial risks are fully understood.

In a U.S. Government Accountability Office report released last month, investigators suggested NASA limit the Orion contract to "activities needed to successfully complete the preliminary design review."

"NASA should lessen the government's obligation to the project at such an early stage when realistic cost estimates have yet to be established and requirements are not fully defined," GAO official Allen Li said to the heads of a congressional oversight committee.

Thursday, NASA announced that it chose Lockheed (yes this Lockheed) for the initial phase. The story of the space contract seems to be getting very little overall coverage, but given what we now know of what happened 44 years ago, perhaps it deserves much more scrutiny.

Read Danny's blog at JackLewis.net

At Townhall today I write about how my childhood memories of Emily Litella come to mind when I see the way the media treat corrections to major stories that they have gotten wrong -- with little more than a "never mind."

There have been quite a few “never mind” media opportunites during the Bush years. They range in significance from such incorrect stories as that of the plastic Thanksgiving turkey in Baghdad, to stories such as those of widespread rape and murder in the Superdome following Hurricane Katrina. Michelle Malkin once used a reference to Emily Litella when writing about the “Gitmo Koran flushing” story. Few of the “never minds” have gotten the prominent play that the original inaccurate reports received though. More distressing is that many of them have passed unrealized at all. Instead of even a “never mind,” too often we have gotten dumb silence.

So how does the media set a story straight, after it has peddled an alternate reality version for months or even years?...

Update: The Anchoress read my column and has a lot to add on the subject.

Thanks to John for letting me guest blog at Right Wing News. If you liked this post, please visit me at Wizbang and Wizbang Politics. If you didn't like this post, then visit the other Wizbang bloggers anyway. They are all very good.

I'm going to be taking a couple of days off for the Labor Day holiday. However, as always, the show must go on.

Today, RWN will have guest bloggers. Make sure to give a warm welcome to:

Patrick Hynes from Ankle Biting Pundits
Danny Carlton from Jack Lewis
La Shawn Barber from La Shawn Barber's Corner
Lorie Byrd from Wizbang

On Monday, since it will be a holiday, RWN will be running retro posts. Then, on Tuesday, RWN will be back on a normal schedule.

So, until I return on Tuesday, enjoy the guest bloggers, enjoy the retro posts, and have a great holiday week-end!

Question: "Do you think that if the NYT or other liberal news outlet were to get word of an upcoming terrorist attack on US soil, they would let the government know about it?" -- klaatuwolf

Answer: Some of them would issue a warning and some of them would just get in position to make sure they could get good footage of people dying and two of the most prominent names in the mainstream media have essentially said as much.

Here's an excerpt from Newsbusters that discusses an, "edition of the PBS panel series, Ethics in America, devoted to war coverage, which was taped at Harvard in late 1987,"

"In a future war involving U.S. soldiers what would a TV reporter do if he learned the enemy troops with which he was traveling were about to launch a surprise attack on an American unit? That's just the question Harvard University professor Charles Ogletree Jr, as moderator of PBS' Ethics in America series, posed to ABC anchor Peter Jennings and 60 Minutes correspondent Mike Wallace. Both agreed getting ambush footage for the evening news would come before warning the U.S. troops.

For the March 7 installment on battlefield ethics Ogletree set up a theoretical war between the North Kosanese and the U.S.-supported South Kosanese. At first Jennings responded: "If I was with a North Kosanese unit that came upon Americans, I think I personally would do what I could to warn the Americans."

Wallace countered that other reporters, including himself, "would regard it simply as another story that they are there to cover." Jennings' position bewildered Wallace: "I'm a little bit of a loss to understand why, because you are an American, you would not have covered that story."

"Don't you have a higher duty as an American citizen to do all you can to save the lives of soldiers rather than this journalistic ethic of reporting fact?" Ogletree asked. Without hesitating Wallace responded: "No, you don't have higher duty...you're a reporter." This convinces Jennings, who concedes, "I think he's right too, I chickened out."

Ogletree turns to Brent Scrowcroft, now the National Security Adviser, who argues "you're Americans first, and you're journalists second." Wallace is mystified by the concept, wondering "what in the world is wrong with photographing this attack by North Kosanese on American soldiers?" Retired General William Westmoreland then points out that "it would be repugnant to the American listening public to see on film an ambush of an American platoon by our national enemy."

There you go.

So, if people who think like Wallace or the late Peter Jennings in the mainstream media -- and undoubtedly there are quite a few -- were to find out that Al-Qaeda was about to blow up an elementary school, they wouldn't call the police or the Feds, they'd start setting up their cameras so they could get shots of the little tykes' corpses being carried off. After all, as reporters they, "have higher duty."

PS: Now the reporters at Fox? They'd pick up the phone and call the Feds. After all, they're Americans first and reporters second. It goes without saying which approach I think is the right one.

“I don’t have a definite date, but I can see, 12 to 18 months, the Iraqi security forces progressing to where they can take on security responsibilities with very little Coalition support." -- General George Casey

Read it all at Redstate.

Question: "I actually have a question for John (rather belatedly).

John, while you've linked to the articles, I notice you haven't had much to say about the 'fauxtography' scandals- the questionable photos and practices highlighted in the recent fighting over in Lebanon.

Any reason why? Do you feel it has enough coverage in the blogosphere? Other fish to fry? Just haven't gotten around to it?" -- Raposa

Answer: Actually, I did two posts on it (here & here) and also linked related stories several times in the daily news. So, I did cover it.

But, to tell you the truth, I think a lot of people went overboard and ended up presenting pics as "fakes" based on pure speculation that ended up being legit. Granted, because of the self-correcting nature of the blogosphere, most of the mistakes were corrected in a relatively short period of time -- but I think overall, the blogosphere would have been better off being a little slower on the trigger instead of going into such a frenzy after Adnan Hajj got busted.

"Politics to the X-Treme," did a podcast interview with me about Rightroots on their debut show.

You can catch it here.

Question: "In spite of most of the evidence to the contrary, so many people feel the economy is not doing well. Is this due to gasoline prices? Or do people really think that this economy is no good?" -- cubsfan3325

Answer: Most people don't care much about GDP and the overall strength of the economy. They're being influenced by things like:

#1) The mainstream media plays down the economy because a Republican is in the White House

#2) People hate to pay a lot for gas and they get reminded how high the gas prices are every time they go to the pump.

#3) The stock market isn't going up as it did during the nineties.

People look at those things and errantly assume the economy is doing poorly, when in actuality, it's been strong for roughly 3 years now.

Question: "If you could take the place of any musician (living or dead) and be in any band, who would it be?

For example, you wanna lead the ultimate rock star life - then *snap* you've just become Mick Jagger. Or you wanna go more the crooner route and hang in Vegas....*snap* you're Frank Sinatra..." -- Tom_pinko_Delay

Answer: I don't drink, I don't smoke, and I don't do drugs. Moreover, I don't particularly like to travel (other than on an occasional vacation) and doing a year long tour across the country would be like torture for me.

Moreover, I generally find parties to be boring, I'm not all that interested in meeting famous people (outside of politics), I'm too old to be sleeping with trashy groupies every night, I like my privacy, and I get more jazzed up over getting a big interview or a mention on the Rush Limbaugh show than I would ever get about performing in front of a screaming crowd.

In other words, I am saying that I am about as temperamentally unsuited to being a professional musician as Mick Jagger would be to blogging about politics for a living. So, since rock stardom would be wasted on someone like me, I am going to decline to make a selection.

Question: "I have noticed that your a pro wrestling fan and with that in mind, are you a Mixed Martial Arts (or MMA) fan? Do you think MMA will eventually overcome boxing in terms of popularity?" -- DMaestas

Answer: I've always enjoyed martial arts movies and when I was in college, I spent about a year taking Southern Longfist Kung-Fu classes (Yes, not very many people teach that in the United States. My instructor was taught by a guy from China). But, it was good exercise, a lot of fun, and I really enjoyed the sparring.

So, when the Ultimate Fighting Championships went live, I loved the whole concept. Fights, with no gloves, where the only rules were no biting, no gouging the eyes, and no fishhooking the mouth. The first couple of UFCs were really eye openers. Kicks didn't work well, most of the fights ended up on the ground, and Royce Gracie? Wow. Some guy who outweighed him by 50 pounds would end up on top of him and next thing you know, Gracie would be strangling him out.

Unfortunately, once the competition improved and people got a better feel for the fighting, it got deadly dull because every fight would end up on the ground for 10 minutes. So, after the first 3 UFCs, I sort of tuned it out.

Then, after they changed the rules to make it more exciting, I watched a couple of UFCs, but it just wasn't the same somehow. So, as of late, I've just watched 2-3 of those "best knockout" tapes, which are fairly entertaining.

Will MMA ever become more popular than boxing? Well, boxing has been around a long time, but the glory days of the sport seem to be in the past while MMA is still getting more popular. But, my gut instinct is that MMA won't ever get as popular as boxing, because it's easier to relate to boxing. Not only have there been great champions that people still talk about, but any guy can throw a punch. But, all those kicks and grappling techniques? They're not so easy to pick-up. In a way, it's sort of like Muay Thai fighting. Is it a better show than boxing? Yeah, probably. So's kickboxing for that matter. But, neither of them have really caught people's imagination in the United States.

Here's a fascinating glimpse into the mind of a 19 year-old Muslim beauty queen in Britain:

The first Muslim to be crowned Miss England has warned that stereotyping members of her community is leading some towards extremism.

...She said: "The attitude towards Muslims has got worse over the year. Also the Muslims' attitude to British people has got worse.

"Even moderate Muslims are turning to terrorism to prove themselves. They think they might as well support it because they are stereotyped anyway. It will take a long time for communities to start mixing in more.

In all fairness to Ms. Kohistani, she did get elected for her looks, not her brains. But, let's set that aside for just a moment and look at her line of reasoning.

"Even moderate Muslims are turning to terrorism to prove themselves. They think they might as well support it because they are stereotyped anyway."

So, because they're stereotyped as terrorists, they're turning to terrorism and what -- proving the stereotype is spot-on? Worse yet, if "moderate" Muslims are turning into terrorists, then doesn't that mean that even "moderate" Muslims can't be trusted?

I'm sure there are Muslims all over Britain right now going, "Thank you for the kind words, no, no, really. Thank you. But, could you move on to world peace or saving Africa or some other topic please? No, no, you did just fine, but we'll take it from here, Ok?"

PS: If Ms. Kohistani or any other Muslim wants to do something about the perception -- the growing perception I might add -- that Muslims are sympathetic to terrorism, then there's a very obvious thing that can be done. Condemn terrorists and terrorism at every opportunity. Condemn Al-Qaeda, condemn Hamas, Condemn Hezbollah. Call them what they are: despicable, evil, monstrous. When there's a terrorist attack in Europe, Israel, Russia -- it really doesn't matter where it happens -- don't make excuses, don't try to shift the blame -- unconditionally condemn the people responsible. If a lot more Muslims were to start doing that on a regular basis, they'd find that a lot of the ill will and suspicion cast towards Muslims would start to evaporate in short order.

Question: "If you could choose one Liberal/Democrat politician/blogger/pundit to announce tomorrow that they are resigning/quitting tomorrow and vow to never speak about politics again in public, who would you choose?

Which Conservative/Republican would you choose to do the same thing?" -- DMaestas

Answer: On the left, it would be Jimmy Carter. He's embarrassingly naive, foolish, and weak and was perhaps the worst President of the last century. He has already retired, but he doesn't have enough class and respect for tradition to shut up. He's a walking, talking version of that old proverb:

"It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."

On the Republican side, my first instinct would be to go with McCain. But, since there's a Democratic Governor in Arizona, it would mean losing a seat.

So, since that's the case, I think I'd go with Michael Savage. He's Ann Coulter without the wit, humor, or incisive thinking. He's a crabby, rude Paleocon whose main "accomplishment" is convincing conservatives that being irritating, pessimistic, and off-putting makes them witty.

Along with Patrick Buchanan, he's the worst thing going in conservatism today.

Update #1: After reading the comments section, I realized that there is a better answer on the liberal retiree question: David Souter. At 66, he's the youngest, liberal member of the Supreme Court. If he were to retire, George Bush could replace him with say Janice Rogers Brown, Edith Jones, Michael Luttig or some other conservative justice.

Bush Nominates 5 As Appeals Court Judges

A California Accord That Will Give The State The Toughest Laws In The Nation On Cutting Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Video: Muslim Hit And Run Killer In San Francisco Referred To Himself As A Terrorist According To A Witness

Republican Pork King Ted Stevens Is Responsible For The Secret Hold On A Database Allowing Citizens To Track Wasteful Spending

CBS Magazine Slims Katie Couric Photo

National Guardsman Brutally Attacked

Israel Rejects U.N. Blockade Appeal (Applause)

Iran Enriching More Uranium (Free WAPO Reg Req)

Some Democratic Leaders Want To Weaken The Tools The Administration Uses To Identify And Track Terrorists, Cheney Said, While Others Would “Give Up The Fight (And) Retreat” From Iraq.

Chavez: Venezuela, Syria United Against U.S.

Marine Who Led Haditha Attack Was Recommended For A Medal (Free WAPO Reg Req)

Hapless Former President Jimmy Carter Agrees to Hold Talks With Iran's Khatami (Free WAPO Reg Req)

Radio Shack Fires 400 Employees By Email

2 GOP Write-in Candidates Remain In Race For DeLay's Seat

Fairleigh Dickinson University's PublicMind Poll On The New Jersey Senate Race: Kean (R) 43% Vs. Menendez (D) 39%

Bush Raises $1.5 Million For Corker

Wictory Wednesday Supports Michael Steele

Cliff May: The Freed Fox Journalists

Stuart Taylor Jr: The New York Times Is Still Victimizing Innocent Dukies

Mark Steyn: How Can 36 Per Cent Of People Polled Think U.S. Officials Knew Of Or Participated In 9/11?

Novak Estimate: If The Election Were Held Today, The GOP Would Lose 14 Seats

MSM Still Doesn’t Get What Blogging Is About

Fact-Checking The Mainstream Media (Lawsuit Division)

Video: MTV Workers Get Nasty -- ‘I Hope Your Wife Gets Raped And Can’t Get An Abortion’

Harry's Umbrella

Website Of The Day: Michelle Malkin

Today is Q&A Thursday #47 at RWN. Of course, the Q&A day is Friday normally, but since there will be guest bloggers on RWN Friday (I'm taking it off for Labor Day Week-end), I thought it made sense to move it up a day.

So, if there's a subject you've been wanting me to tackle or an issue you want to hear my opinion on, just ask your question in the comments section. Your question can be about politics, ideology, history, blogging, RWN, from a liberal, conservative, or libertarian perspective; heck, it can even be about movies, music, literature, or TV. Then later today, I'll select some of the more interesting questions and answer them.

Ask away!

Some people, perhaps because of the humiliation they suffered when their assumption that Mark Karr killed JonBenet Ramsey turned out to be false, have been lashing out at District Attorney Mary Lacy for having Karr flown back to the US from Thailand:

"The prosecutor in the JonBenet Ramsey case Tuesday defended her decision to bring John Mark Karr halfway around the world to Colorado for investigation, saying it was difficult to separate fact from fantasy in his lurid account because every detail of the slaying is public knowledge.

District Attorney Mary Lacy said that in addition to Karr's graphic account, his obvious predilection for little girls forced her hand.

"We felt we could not ignore this. We had to follow it," she said. "There was a real public safety concern here directed at a particular child" in Thailand, and a forensic psychologist said Karr "was dangerous, this person was escalating."

Also Tuesday, a judge ordered Karr sent to California to face five misdemeanor child pornography charges dating to 2001, saying he had violated terms of his bond in that state by failing to show up for a hearing on the charges.

In the day since Lacy's office announced it was dropping the case against Karr, the district attorney has been bitterly criticized by defense attorneys and by Gov. Bill Owens, who accused her of wasting thousands of dollars on the "most expensive DNA test in Colorado history."

For 90 minutes, Lacy patiently explained why authorities spent at least $9,300 to bring Karr back from Thailand after he balked at a more sophisticated DNA test that could have ruled him out as a suspect in the 1996 slaying of the 6-year-old beauty queen at her Boulder home.

Lacy said she wanted the investigation done quietly, but details leaked to the media."

Let's straighten some things out here.

The DA didn't ask for the media to go bonkers over Karr being brought back to the US. She didn't ask for round-the-clock cable coverage. She didn't call up Matt Drudge and say, "Hey, could you slap this creepy pervert's pic on the front of Drudge Report all day long?" It just leaked out and because a potential arrest in the JonBenet case was big news, it got enormous coverage. That much is understandable.

But, the people who declared Karr guilty right off the bat? That was ridiculous. What about the members of the media who were bending over backwards to apologize to the Ramsey family for ever suspecting them? That was ridiculous, too.

But, the people who did that have nobody to blame but themselves for jumping to conclusions because plenty of people, myself included, were extremely suspicious of Karr's story from the very beginning.

So, why should the DA get the blame for the people who jumped the gun? She was investigating a murder and had a guy who confessed. What's wrong with looking into it? Especially when we're talking about a pedophile, up on child pornography charges, who had gotten a teaching job in Thailand. I bet the parents at that school, whose little girls would have been spending the day with Mark Karr, aren't the least bit unhappy that he got dragged back to Colorado.

Long story short: Even though Karr didn't kill JonBenet, it's certainly worth $9,300 to get him away from those 2nd graders he would have been teaching and into a California courtroom where he'll face child porn charges. So, Mary Lacy was right to take action.

Update #1: In the comments section, Redfish (tsk, tsk, tsk) writes:

"That is a nice CYA on your part but Karr would have been far better off in a Thailand jail. There was no reason to bring him back that quick. The Thailand police had him in custody for things he did there. The DA could have investigated his BS while sitting in jail over yonder. Thailand Jail! Not sure that he would have ever made it out a live and that would be a nice ending to this story."

One problem with that theory: Despite what you may have heard, Karr apparently wasn't being charged with breaking any laws in Thailand. They picked him up because they were asked to do so by the United States. From the Rocky Mountain News:

"The tracking of John Mark Karr began a couple of months ago, Tumrongsiskul said.

"We were informed by ICE (U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) that the suspect of this case has come to Thailand," said Tumrongsiskul. He added that ICE didn’t know the man’s name at that point, and had just an e-mail address, his Internet Provider, and therefore the neighborhood of Bangkok where he’d been e-mailing.

The neighborhood was Thung Maha Mek, barely a kilometer from the general’s office.

News reports in Bangkok say U.S. investigators got a break when Karr sent an envelope to Tracy by regular mail, and wrote a return address on the envelope of Bangkok, Thailand. The address had the name of a major thoroughfare, but no number or cross street.

Then ICE came up with the name: John Mark Karr. And Thai immigration police began searching for him.

Although Thai hotels report foreigners, the records are not automated, and the search took some time, the general said.

"And on the 11th of August, we found him." That was a Friday, and the general’s office immediately informed ICE.

Not wanting to lose Karr, "we sent two or three officers to stay in that apartment building" to keep an eye on his whereabouts, Tumrongsiskul said. That was a major commitment of his officers‘ time, but "for the Americans, our good friends, we do it," he said.

The officers watched the suspect leave in the morning on his bicycle, but did not follow to see where he went. "He came back in the evening. Most of the time, he stayed in his room."

Thai officials do not believe he violated any local laws, the general said.

Within four days of the Thais’ finding Karr, the Boulder District Attorney’s office had a warrant for Karr’s arrest on murder charges signed by Judge Roxanne Bailin on Aug. 15. Prosecutors sent it off to Thailand. On Aug. 16, the general received it and immediately revoked Karr’s visa."

If the US hadn't asked Thailand to chase down Karr, he'd probably be teaching 2nd grade over there right now...

A month and a half ago, few people thought the Senate race in Michigan would be competitive. Mike Bouchard and Keith Butler were going head to head in a primary battle and both of them were polling 12-15 points behind Democratic Senator Debbie Stabenow.

But then, Bouchard won the primary, picked up a lot of momentum, and next thing you know, he was running roughly 6 points back, give or take the margin of error.

Well, earlier tonight, I had an opportunity to get in on a teleconference with Bouchard and I was looking forward to seeing how he came across.

My first impression? Bouchard seems to be charismatic, energetic, and as tough as you'd expect a sheriff to be. He also had no problem pulling out the brass knuckles to use on Stabenow.

At one point he said he was going to, "pound her in the nose with reality." He also accused her of being a "jellyfish" who talked in "Washingtonspeak." He made a good case for that, by the way.

He pointed out that he supports the House position on illegal immigration -- while Stabenow voted for giving Social Security to illegals, but against making English America's official language.

He talked about how Stabenow is killing jobs in Washington and voted for the "Bridge to Nowhere" twice, while he's a fiscal conservative.

He noted that Stabenow is for trial lawyers, while he's for tort reform.

Also, in response to a question, he made it clear that he respected the President, but didn't agree with his approach on illegal immigration and spending.

In his best line of the teleconference, Bouchard talked about how ridiculous it would be to set a date to withdraw from Iraq. He said something like (This isn't a quote):

People say we're going to pull out on such and such a date. I'd say, what's that based on? Did you just pull that date out of thin air? If I had a hostage situation, I would never go up to my men and say rush hour is at 5, so this situation has to be taken care of by 4:49. You just can't put your men in the field in that position.

As far as the horse race aspect of the race went, he noted that he has gotten a lot of Democratic votes as Sheriff. In fact, he said he got 100,000 more votes in his county than Bush did in 2004.

He also noted that the party was united in Michigan and that they have all gotten together to handle the ground game -- which sounds incredibly impressive by the way. Get this, he said that they've already done more voter contacts than were done in the presidential campaign and noted that DeVos, who's running for Governor, will fund the biggest ground games in the history of the state.

Put it all together and not only do I think Bouchard is definitely capable of knocking off Stabenow, I think that this one could turn into one of our best pick up opportunities in the Senate before it's over.

Over at the Daily Kos, DK diarist pinche tejano gets all hyped up to murder people in the insurance industry:

"There's this thing, called a tidal surge, big f*cking wall of water that announces the arrival of any hurricane when it hits land. I should know, Brazoria deals with hurricanes a lot. We also distrust the Army Engineers, who are known liars.

But back to the wall of water, hate to keep repeating myself, but since you have your heads so firmly stuck up your own *sses I will say it slowly. Hurricanes cause flooding. The flooding was caused by the hurricane. Since these people had Hurricane Insurance, they are covered since the wall of water was hurricane related. Understand?

Where did you think this f*cking flooding came from? Moses spliting the damn Mississippi Delta? A system of bayous to d*mn scared to flow into the gulf because a big bad storm was out there? Or could it be the mother f*cking tidal surge of the god d*mn hurricane?

You should all be tried before the public and possibly hung for this offense. You must honor your claims, it's not our fault you finally have to pay out. What, you think in Vegas they are simply say, ok, we know you let it all ride on red and it came up black, but you don't have to pay out? Do you really think thats gonna happen?

And remember this, all you f*cking ceos and adjustors and apologist, remember you this one last f*cking thing. If you even think about pulling this stunt in Brazoria or Matagorda, you better bring an army.

Because filing briefs don't stop bullets, and when the ballot box fails us, we are not above seeing what's in the ammo box."

Apparently, what he's talking about -- between F-bombs -- is this:

"A federal judge ruled Tuesday that an insurance company’s policies do not cover damage from flood waters or storm surge in a decision that could affect hundreds of upcoming cases related to property damage from Hurricane Katrina.

U.S. District Judge L.T. Senter Jr. ruled that a Mississippi Gulf Coast couple cannot collect damages from storm surge caused by Katrina because Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co.’s policies do not cover wind-driven water damage.

Senter Jr. said Paul and Julie Leonard of Pascagoula could be compensated for damage that they could prove was caused by high winds, however.

“Almost all the damage to the Leonard residence is attributable to the incursion of water,” Senter wrote in the 13-page decision."

In other words, if you have an insurance policy that only covers wind damage from a hurricane, they only pay for wind damage, not flood damage. That's how insurance works out in the real world, as opposed to the, "Something bad happened to you? Then here's money whether it's covered or not," policy that they seem to think applies in the, "reality based community."

So maybe "pinche tejano" and the rest of the Kossacks should check their insurance policies out before they start going postal on the insurance companies.

The folks over at Human Events liked my, "Conservative Case Against Rudy Giuliani In 2008," post so much, they asked to run it for them as a column this week. However, there is one twist. I've added a chapter on Bernard Kerik for the HE version of the post.

You can check it out here.

PS: Also, I wanted to tackle an argument that came up several times yesterday, in response to the Rudy column. Here's Martin from My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy making the aforementioned case for Rudy:

"First. I’m not attacking Hawkins personally, indeed I enjoy his site.

But he is simply wrong if he thinks the 2008 election should or will be fought and won on partial birth abortion, the second amendment, or even illegal immigration.

There is one issue that the 2008 election should and will turn on - the global struggle to defeat proliferating Islamic Fascists."

First of all, I would agree that fighting the war on terrorism will be a big issue in the 2008 election, especially since the Democrats have become such wusses that they make Neville Chamberlain look like Genghis Khan.

However, the war on terrorism probably WILL NOT be a decisive factor in the Republican primaries simply because most of the candidates will probably have very similar positions on national defense. In fact, other than Chuck Hagel, I believe all the major candidates could, at least at this point, be fairly called hawks on national security issues.

Does that mean that there won't be differences between the candidates on the issue? No, but it's also fair to say that Rudy doesn't objectively seem to have any big advantage on the issue over most of the people he'll be competing with for the nomination.

Granted, he did perform magnificently after 9/11, built up a tough guy reputation battling crime, and has certainly talked a good game on national security -- but, when it comes right down to it, what does that mean exactly?

If, let's say, one of the big issues is whether to bomb Iran or not in 2009, what makes anyone think Rudy could handle it better than Sam Brownback?

If we have to decide whether to hit a terrorist training camp in Syria, what makes Rudy more capable of handling that than Mitt Romney?

If a decision needs to be made on whether to take out a North Korean missile site, is Rudy better equipped to make that decision than Newt Gingrich? What about George Allen, Tom Tancredo, or Bill Frist?

The reality is that there isn't, at least at the moment, any sort of gap between Rudy and the other contenders on national security. Since that's the case, what will likely happen is that the primary voters will move well beyond national security and on to other issues. And unfortunately for Rudy, he is a middle-of-the-roader who will have the unenviable task of convincing conservative voters that he better represents their views than -- well -- actual conservatives. Once we get past these early polls, which reflect little more than name recognition, Rudy's numbers are going to plunge.

This is the sort of thing that makes me wonder if Israel is just waiting for the UN ceasefire to fail before getting back to work:

"Israel rejected a call from U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan on Wednesday to lift its air and sea blockade of Lebanon, saying it would only end the 7-week-old siege once all elements of a ceasefire were in place.

During an hour of talks with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Annan said he pressed for a lifting of the embargo, imposed after the start of the war against Lebanon's Hizbollah guerrilla group on July 12, mainly on economic grounds.

At a news conference after their meeting, Olmert rebuffed Annan, saying any relaxation of pressure on Lebanon's ports and airspace depended on the full implementation of U.N. resolution 1701, which governs the ceasefire with Hizbollah.

"The (resolution) is a fixed buffet and everything will be implemented, including the lifting of the blockade, as part of the entire implementation of the different articles," he said.

....In the talks, Olmert also reiterated his call for the U.N. force to be deployed not just in southern Lebanon but along the border with Syria, a deployment that the U.N. resolution makes dependent on a request from the Lebanese government."

Here's more from Olmert:

"[The resolution] is not a buffet where you pick up one item and leave others," he said.

"So far as we're concerned we entirely accept this, this is a fixed buffet and everything will be implemented including the lifting of the blockade as part of an entire implementation of the different articles."

Mr Olmert said unless two Israeli soldiers captured by Hezbollah on 12 July were freed, the UN resolution "cannot be considered as fully implemented".

This is very interesting because the UN has no intentions whatsoever of disarming Hezbollah, preventing Syria from rearming them, stopping the Hezbos from attacking Israel, or getting Israel's soldiers released.

All the UN intends to do is to send 15,000 blue helmeted bullet catchers into Lebanon where they'll spend their days playing card games and their nights molesting the local women and children.

If the UN isn't going to fulfill the terms of the resolution and Israel isn't going to let up until they are fulfilled, well, then something will have to give and let's hope that it's this whole rotten ceasefire that is currently working to the advantage of Hezbollah.

The Iowa-01 seat currently held by Jim Nussle keeps getting listed as one of most vulnerable seats for the GOP. That's because the district leans a little bit to the left.

However, I've interviewed Mike Whalen, the Rightroots Endorsed GOP candidate in that district, and am privy to their internal polling numbers.

Although I am not allowed to talk about those poll numbers, I can tell you that Whalen is sharp, he has a fund raising and cash on hand advantage, and I found his poll numbers to be very encouraging. Although it's still very early, I'd put his seat in the "leans Republican" category.

Will it stay that way? That remains to be seen, but if that district is one of the Dems' top 5 pick-up opportunities, this isn't going to be a great year for the Democrats.

PS: At the moment, despite all this talk about "Democratic waves," there's only one seat held by the GOP in the House that could fairly be said to be in the "Leaning Democrat" category. That's Tom DeLay's old seat, which the Dems are probably going to win through legal trickery. Because the Dems managed to keep the GOP candidate off the ballot, the Republicans are now tasked with trying to get a candidate named Shelley Sekula-Gibbs over the finish line in a write-in campaign against a Democratic challenger who has 2 million dollars in the bank because people thought he would be running against Tom DeLay. Nothing against Gibbs, who would make a fine candidate if she could get her name on the ballot, but Republicans should write that one off and put their resources into other races.

PS #2: Don't get me wrong: there are maybe 20-25 Republican seats and 10-15 Democratic seats that could probably be considered "toss-ups" right now, but that's a far cry from, "The Dems have got 15-25 seats in the bag!" To the contrary, they look more like they're in the 5-10 seat gain range and unless something changes, they don't appear to be on track to take back the House.

You can help Republican candidates like Mike Whalen by contributing to them through Rightroots.

Update #1: Things just got worse for Sekula-Gibbs:

In yet another surprise in the race for Congressional District 22, there will be two Republican write-in candidates running against Democrat Nick Lampson and Libertarian Bob Smither.

On Tuesday – the deadline for withdrawing or registering as a write-in – Houston City Councilwoman Shelley Sekula-Gibbs traveled to Austin to file her papers, as expected.

But unexpectedly, by the end of the day former Republican congressional candidate and Houston businessman Don Richardson did not ask the Texas Secretary of State’s office to remove his name as a write-in candidate.

...Contacted at his home Tuesday night, Richardson said he is still in the race despite telling GOP officials and precinct chairs at an Aug. 17 gathering in Pearland that he would drop out.

At that meeting, some 83 precicnt chairs in CD-22 voted to support Sekula-Gibbs as an unofficial Republican write-in candidate, and party officials urged other GOP candidates – including Richardson and Sugar Land Mayor David Wallace – to withdraw from the race.

At the Pearland gathering, Texas GOP Chairman Tina Benkiser “got up and said the Republican National Committee would put up $4 million if and only if” there were a single write-in candidate in the race, Richardson said.

...“I said look, if you’ll put it in writing about the $4 million and refund my campaign expenses…I will withdraw,” Richardson said. “I haven’t heard from anybody. So my name is still on the ballot.”

This may be a blessing in disguise because Sekula-Gibbs would be a long shot without Richardson on the ballot and the idea of spending 4 million dollars of RNC money in an effort to keep that seat is absolutely insane. They could take that same money, split it up, and make a huge impact in a dozen other races with it. So, why toss all that money into a race where we will still probably lose because of a legal technicality, when we'd have a decent shot of picking the same seat back up in 2008 when we can get a candidate on the ballot?

"On a continent where belief in black magic and evil spirits is common, witch hunts are nothing new, usually targeting older, unmarried women. But in the Democratic Republic of Congo, there's a new twist to this ancient inquisition. A majority of those said to be involved in witchcraft and sorcery are children, and such allegations against them are the No. 1 cause of homelessness among youths.

Of the estimated 25,000 children living on the streets of Kinshasa, the capital, more than 60% had been thrown out of their homes by relatives accusing them of witchcraft, child-welfare advocates say. The practice is so rampant that Congo's new constitution, adopted in December, includes a provision outlawing allegations of sorcery against children." -- The LA Times

Man Named Omeed Aziz Popal Goes On Hit And Run Spree In San Francisco

Yes, Omeed Aziz Popal, Is A Muslim

Arnold Schwarzenegger Yesterday Signed A Bill That Would Require All Businesses And Groups Receiving State Funding -- Even If It's A State Grant For A Student -- To Condone Homosexuality, Bisexuality And Transsexuality

Rumsfeld Portrayed The Administration's Critics As Suffering From "Moral And Intellectual Confusion" About What Threatens The Nation's Security.

CNN’s Phillips Chats In The Loo During Bush Speech

Air America's Spring 2006 Ratings (Just Awful)

Fresh Violence In Pakistan

Analysis: Hezbollah`S Indoctrination

Brother Says Castro Recovery 'Satisfactory'

Jack Kemp To Stump For Sen. Lieberman

The Reasoning Behind The Special Election For November 7th To Fill Tom Delay's Seat From November 7th Until The End Of The Year

The GOP Sends Campaign Workers In The Help Lincoln Chaffee Beat Republican Steven Laffey In The Primary

An Interview With Bill Frist

Donald Rumsfeld: Facing the Central Questions of Our Time

Douglas Davis: Syria's Sights Are Set On Lebanon

Robert Samuelson: Wal-Mart As Red Herring

Jonah Goldberg: Fool's Goldwater

Robert Spencer: Fox News and Forced Conversions

John Stossel: Schools Need Competition Now

New Orleans Bar Stayed Open Through Katrina And Chaos That Followed

Kids Watch As Clown Is Crushed To Death

Kidnap Girl Demands House That Was Prison

Congo: Barely School-Age When Relatives Labeled Her A Witch, Naomi Found Herself Cast Out On The Streets. Her Story Is A Common One In Congo. (Free LA Times Reg Req)

Game: Fracture

Website Of The Day: Ankle Biting Pundits

Rudy Giuliani, a contender for the Presidency in 2008, is receiving an inordinate amount of positive attention. That's quite understandable since Rudy is charismatic, did a great job on the campaign trail for President Bush in 2004, and his phenomenal performance after 9/11 was much appreciated.

However, likeable or not, having Rudy as the GOP's candidate in 2008 would be a big mistake. Here's a short, but sweet primer on some of Rudy's many flaws.

As these comments from a 1989 conversation with Phil Donahue show, Rudy Giuliani is staunchly in favor of abortion:

"I've said that I'll uphold a woman's right of choice, that I will fund abortion so that a poor woman is not deprived of a right that others can exercise, and that I would oppose going back to a day in which abortions were illegal.

I do that in spite of my own personal reservations. I have a daughter now; if a close relative or a daughter were pregnant, I would give my personal advice, my religious and moral views ...

DONAHUE: Which would be to continue the pregnancy.

GIULIANI: Which would be that I would help her with taking care of the baby. But if the ultimate choice of the woman - my daughter or any other woman - would be that in this particular circumstance [if she had] to have an abortion, I'd support that. I'd give my daughter the money for it."

Worse yet, Giuliani even supports partial birth abortion:

"I'm pro-choice. I'm pro-gay rights,Giuliani said. He was then asked whether he supports a ban on what critics call partial-birth abortions. "No, I have not supported that, and I don't see my position on that changing," he responded." -- CNN.com, "Inside Politics" Dec 2, 1999

It's bad enough that Rudy is so adamantly pro-abortion, but consider what that could mean when it comes time to select Supreme Court Justices. Does the description of Giuliani that you've just read make you think he's going to select an originalist like Clarence Thomas, who would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade -- or does it make you think he would prefer justices like Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy who'd leave Roe v. Wade in place?

Rudy's abortion stance is bad news for conservatives who are pro-life or who are concerned about getting originalist judges on the Supreme Court.

In the last couple of election cycles, 2nd Amendment issues have moved to the back burner mainly because even Democratic candidates have learned that being tagged with the "gun grabber" label is political poison.

Unfortunately, Rudy Giuliani is a proponent of gun control who supported the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapon Ban.

Do Republicans really want to abandon their strong 2nd Amendment stance by selecting a pro-gun control nominee?

Other than tax cuts, the biggest domestic issue of the 2004 election was President Bush's support of a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as being between a man and a woman. Unfortunately, Rudy Giuliani has taken a "Kerryesque" position on gay marriage.

Although Rudy, like John Kerry, has said that marriage should remain between a man and a woman, he also supports civil unions, "marched in gay-pride parades ...dressed up in drag on national television for a skit on Saturday Night Live (and moved in with a) wealthy gay couple" after his divorce. He also very vocally opposed running on a gay marriage amendment:

His thoughts on the gay-marriage amendment? "I don't think you should run a campaign on this issue," he told the Daily News earlier this month. "I think it would be a mistake for anybody to run a campaign on it -- the Democrats, the president, or anybody else."

Here's more from the New York Daily News:

"Rudy Giuliani came out yesterday against President Bush's call for a ban on gay marriage.

The former mayor, who Vice President Cheney joked the other night is after his job, vigorously defended the President on his post-9/11 leadership but made clear he disagrees with Bush's proposal to rewrite the Constitution to outlaw gays and lesbians from tying the knot.

"I don't think it's ripe for decision at this point," he said on NBC's "Meet the Press."

"I certainly wouldn't support [a ban] at this time," added Giuliani..."

Although Rudy may grudgingly say he doesn't support gay marriage (and it would be political suicide for him to do otherwise), where he really stands on the issue is an open question.

As Tom Bevan of RealClearPolitics has pointed out, Rudy is an adherent of the same approach to illegal immigration that John McCain, Ted Kennedy, George Bush, and Harry Reid have championed:

"While McCain has taken heat for his support of comprehensive immigration reform, Rudy is every bit as pro-immigration as McCain - if not more so. On the O'Reilly Factor last week Giuliani argued for a "practical approach" to immigration and cited his efforts as Mayor of New York City to "regularize" illegal immigrants by providing them with access to city services like public education to "make their lives reasonable." Giuliani did say that "a tremendous amount of money should be put into the physical security" needed to stop the flow of illegal immigrants coming across the border, but his overall position on immigration is essentially indistinguishable from McCain's."

That's bad enough. But, as Michelle Malkin has revealed, under Giuliani, New York was an illegal alien sanctuary and "America's Mayor" actually sued the Federal Government in an effort to keep New York City employees from having to cooperate with the INS:

"When Congress enacted immigration reform laws that forbade local governments from barring employees from cooperating with the INS, Mayor Rudy Giuliani filed suit against the feds in 1997. He was rebuffed by two lower courts, which ruled that the sanctuary order amounted to special treatment for illegal aliens and were nothing more than an unlawful effort to flaunt federal enforcement efforts against illegal aliens. In January 2000, the Supreme Court rejected his appeal, but Giuliani vowed to ignore the law."

If you agree with the way that Nancy Pelosi and Company deal with illegal immigration, then you'll find the way that Rudy Giuliani tackles the issue to be right down your alley.

Rudy Giuliani may have many fine qualities, but he is not a conservative, nor has he always been a loyal Republican.

For example, back in the mid-nineties, when he was actually running New York City, Rudy could have fairly been said to have governed as a moderate at best and to the left-of-center at worst:

"The National Journal’s rating system put him at 56 percent conservative and 44 percent liberal on economic issues in 1996 and assessed him as liberal by 59 to 40 percent in looking at his social issues votes."

The New York Observer also had a very interesting selection of quotes from and about Rudy over the years that may give his conservative supporters more than a little pause. Here are a few of those quotations:

Some ask, How can the Liberal Party support a candidate who disagrees with the Liberal Party position on so many gut issues? But when the Liberal Party Policy Committee reviewed a list of key social issues of deep concern to progressive New Yorkers, we found that Rudy Giuliani agreed with the Liberal Party's stance on a majority of such issues. He agreed with the Liberal Party's views on affirmative action, gay rights, gun control, school prayer and tuition tax credits. As Mayor, Rudy Giuliani would uphold the Constitutional and legal rights to abortion. -- N.Y.S. Liberal Party Endorsement Statement of R. Giuliani for Mayor of New York City April 8, 1989

Mr. Rockefeller represented "a tradition in the Republican Party I've worked hard to re-kindle - the Rockefeller, Javits, Lefkowitz tradition." -- Rudy Giuliani, New York Times, July 9, 1992

What kind of Republican? Is [Giuliani], for instance, a Reagan Republican? [Giuliani] pauses before answering: "I'm a Republican." -- Village Voice, January 24, 1989

"Shortly before his last-minute endorsement of Bob Dole in the 1996 presidential election, [Giuliani] told the Post's Jack Newfield that "most of Clinton's policies are very similar to most of mine." The Daily News quoted [Giuliani] as saying that March: "Whether you talk about President Clinton, Senator Dole.... The country would be in very good hands in the hands of any of that group."

Revealing at one point that he was "open" to the idea of endorsing Clinton, he explained: "When I ran for mayor both times, '89 and '93, I promised people that I would be, if not bipartisan, at least open to the possibility of supporting Democrats." -- Rudy - An Investigative Biography of Rudolph Giuliani, Wayne Barrett, Page 459

"From my point of view as the mayor of New York City, the question that I have to ask is, 'Who has the best chance in the next four years of successfully fighting for our interest? Who understands them, and who will make the best case for it?' Our future, our destiny is not a matter of chance. It's a matter of choice. My choice is Mario Cuomo." -- Rudy Giuliani: Emperor of the City, Andrew Kirtzman, Page 133

"[Quite] frankly, you have to understand the fact that Rudy Giuliani was a McGovern Democrat, he was endorsed by the Liberal Party when he ran for Mayor. In his heart, he's a Democrat. He's paraded all over this country with Bill Clinton and, in fact, he's very comfortable with Mario Cuomo. But what Rudy Giuliani wants is to be bailed out in the city, in the
mess he's in, and everybody understands very clearly in politics that they struck a deal, that Mario's going to continue to be the big spender, save Rudy the options of raising taxes by pouring money statewide into the City of New York and bailing it out. Quite frankly, I predict that he will join the Democratic Party." -- Interview with Michael Long, Chairman N.Y.S., Conservative Party, CNN Crossfire, October 25, 1994

Does this really sound like the sort of candidate we want as a standard bearer for the Republican Party?

There has only been one man who has ever made it to the White House after being divorced and that was Ronald Reagan, who had been married to Nancy for more than 25 years before his campaign in 1980. Rudy, on the other hand, is on his third wife.

Furthermore, his second divorce from Donna Hanover was extremely ugly. Hanover accused Rudy of "open and notorious adultery." She also claimed Rudy had an affair with a staffer, Christyne Lategano-Nicholas, which both Giuliani and Lategano-Nicholas denied. However, Rudy has acknowledged that he started seeing his current wife, Judith Nathan, before his divorce from Hanover was finalized in 2002.

Given how recent this divorce was, Rudy's adultery, and the fact that he married, "the other woman," the press can be expected to cover Rudy's marriage to Hanover exhaustively if he gets the nomination and needless to say, Rudy, quite deservedly, will not come off very well.

One of the biggest selling points for Rudy Giuliani is supposed to be that he's "electable" because a lot of independents and Democrats will vote for him. The problem with that sort of thinking is that if he becomes the Republican nominee, the very liberal mainstream media will spend nine months relentlessly savaging him in an effort to help the Democrats. Because of that, Giuliani's sky high polling numbers with non-Republicans are 100% guaranteed to drop significantly before election time rolls around in 2008.

That is not necessarily a problem; after all the mainstream media is always against the Republican nominee, if -- and this is a big "if" -- the GOP nominee has strong support from the Republican base.

The big problem Rudy has is that he isn't going to be able to generate that kind of support. For one thing, as a candidate, he offers almost nothing to social conservatives, without whom a victory for George Bush in 2004 wouldn't have been possible. If the choice in 2008 comes down to a Democrat and a pro-abortion, soft on gay marriage, left-of-center candidate on social issues -- like Rudy -- you can be sure that millions of "moral values voters" will simply stay home and cost the GOP the election.

The other issue is in the South. George Bush swept every Southern state in 2000 and 2004, which is quite an impressive feat when you consider that the Democrats had Southerner Al Gore at the top of the ticket in 2000 and John Edwards as the veep in 2004. Unfortunately, a pro-abortion, soft on gay marriage, pro-gun control RINO from New York City just isn't going to be able to repeat that performance. Even against a carpetbagger like Hillary Clinton, it's entirely likely that you'll see at least 2 or 3 states in the South turn from red to blue if Rudy Giuliani is the nominee.

Also, the reason why George Bush's approval numbers have been mired in the high thirties/low forties of late is because he has lost a significant amount of Republican support, primarily because his domestic policies aren't considered conservative enough. Since that's the case, running a candidate who is several steps to Bush's left on domestic policy certainly doesn't seem like a great way to unite the base again.

Despite all of his charisma and the wonderful leadership he showed after 9/11, Rudy Giuliani is not a Reagan Republican. To the contrary, Giuliani is another Christie Todd Whitman, another Arlen Specter, another Olympia Snowe. He's a throwback to the "bad old days" before Reagan, when the GOP was run by moderate Country Club Republicans who considered conservatives to be extremists. Trying to revive that failed strategy again is likely to lead to a Democratic President in 2008 and numerous setbacks for the Republican Party.

Also see,

The Conservative Case Against John McCain In 2008

Correction: The conversation Rudy had with Donahue about abortion actually occurred in 1989, not 2005. That has been corrected in the post.

After reading my Conservative Case Against Rudy Giuliani In 2008 column, slightly rightward leaning middle-of-the-roader (How's that for a description, lol) Ann Althouse wrote in part:

"But what about the potential to appeal to people like me who are in the middle? What I like about Giuliani is his ability to embody the strong national security position and to argue for it in clear, persuasive terms, without bringing along that social conservative baggage. All those people who vote for Democrats, are they doing it because they are into the party and all it seems to stand for? Or are they put off by the social conservatives on the other side? The social conservatives like Hawkins want Republicans to be afraid to find out."

First off, I am more socially conservative than the average person, but I don't consider myself to be a social conservative. Neither do the people who send me unhappy emails after I interview Republican (She switched parties and is now a Libertarian) porn stars =D.

Secondly, I am -- seriously -- not trying to put anyone down, but there are political realities that need to be addressed here. The reality is that social conservatives make up a very large, dependable block of Republican voters who will flock to the polls if they're catered to or stay home if they're not.

People in "the middle" who switch between the two major parties are a less motivated, much more fickle block of voters who can't be relied on to win elections. That doesn't mean their wants and desires should be ignored or that Republicans shouldn't try to appeal to them, but if the priority is winning elections, the base has to come first.

In other words, for every "moderate" who says, "I may very well consider voting if you'll stop fighting abortion and gay marriage," there are two or three Republicans who are going to say, "If you don't fight abortion and gay marriage, I'm not voting for you."

Put yet another way, one of the biggest mistakes any Republican politician can make is to fall into the -- "What are they going to do if I make them unhappy? Vote for the other guy?" -- mentality. Because once you take that attitude and abandon your base on important issues in order to reach out to the middle, conservatives will abandon you right back. They won't contribute to your campaign or show up at the voting booth and they'll complain incessantly. Next thing you know, you're George Bush with poll numbers mired in the high thirties and low forties because the loss of Republican support has shaved 6-8 points off of your approval rating (and yes, depending on the polling data you look at, he has lost that much REPUBLICAN support since 2004).

So, moderates? Love them, but abandoning social conservatives for moderates would be political suicide for the GOP.

If you're not convinced that defending America from terrorism has become a partisan issue, then you need look no further than the latest poll from the Daily Kos:

That just goes to show you the mentality with which Democrats approach terrorism now that they think it's not an important electoral issue because Joe Lieberman lost his primary.

At this point, less than 5 years after 9/11, amazing as it may seem, what it all comes down to is that...

-- Democrats have forgotten 9/11 and Republicans haven't.

-- Republicans take fighting terrorism seriously and Democrats don't.

-- Republicans believe we're in a war on terrorism and Democrats don't.

It sad, it's shameful, but defending America from foreign threats is every bit a political issue as abortion or gun control and -- yes, there is one Party that believes in stopping terrorism and one Party that doesn't.

Bridget Johnson attended a pro-illegal immigration rally in Maywood, California this week-end and here's just one of the signs she caught on camera:

This is the same protest where they ran a Mexican flag up the flagpole at the Post Office.

Remind me again why people like George Bush, Harry Reid, John McCain, Ted Kennedy, Mike Pence, and Nancy Pelosi believe that people like the guy holding the sign should be allowed to work in America and become citizens of the United States?

On second thought, don't remind me.

I will say this though: if the Democrats take back the House in November, Tom Tancredo and Company will no longer have the strength to stop that Senate Immigration Bill, or something even worse, from becoming law.

Jesse Jackson has a sit-down with terrorist leader:

Veteran US activist Rev. Jesse Jackson discussed an Israel-Hizbullah prisoner swap with Syrian President Bashar Assad on Sunday, and appealed for dialogue as a means to solve the Mideast’s problems.

Jackson, who arrived in Damascus on the first leg of a tour that also includes stops in Lebanon and Israel, said he was on a humanitarian mission to gauge the “views” of Syrian, Lebanese and Israeli officials. He also said he would appeal to them to stick to the UN-brokered cease-fire that took effect on August 14.

Who would let the man that called New York “Hymie-town” broker anything involving Jews or Israel:

Israel, meanwhile, politely dismissed Jackson’s initiative. “We appreciate Jesse Jackson’s sensitivity to the humanitarian issues,” one diplomatic official said, adding that Israel was calling for the unconditional release of the soldiers.

Thank God he doesn’t represent the United States:

Asked what role he might play in improving Syrian-American relations and resuming stalled peace negotiations with Israel, Jackson said, “We are on a humanitarian mission, we don’t represent the US administration. We are here to meet officials in Syria, Lebanon and Israel, to urge for the cease-fire to hold and to guarantee humanitarian aid.”

This content was used with the permission of Polipundit.

The Marines holding Saddam Hussein have found something even crueler than waterboarding. They're making Saddam watch South Park making fun of him.

Former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein is being made to watch his appearance in cult cartoon South Park while he is behind bars.

The deposed leader on trial in Iraq was featured in the movie spin-off as the lover of the devil. South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut featured Hussein and Satan attempting to take over the world together.

Speaking at the Edinburgh International Television Festival, South Park creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone said US Marines guarding the former dictator during his trial for genocide were making him watch the movie "repeatedly".

"I have it on pretty good information from the Marines on detail in Iraq that they showed him the movie last year. That's really adding insult to injury. I bet that made him really happy," Stone said.

Parker and Stone could have no clearer sign of their importance: they are now a torture video. Hee hee.

I expect we'll be hearing from Amnesty International and the Red Cross about this.

This content was used with the permission of Betsy's Page.

40 Killed As Shiites Battle Iraqi Forces

Iraqi PM Nouri al-Maliki: "The Violence Is Not Increasing. We're Not In A Civil War. Iraq Will Never Be In A Civil War. The Violence Is In Decrease And Our Security Ability Is Increasing."

Annan Booed In Hezbollah Stronghold

Ahmadinejad Claims Holocaust Invented To Embarass Germany

Court Rejects Challenges To Mexico Presidential Vote (Free New York Times Reg Req)

No Charges Will Be Filed Against Karr In The Jonbenet Ramsey Investigation

Rumsfeld: U.S. Able To Take New Fight Despite Iraq

Rumsfeld Cautions On Missile Shield

Illegal Alien Activists Hoist The Mexican Flag At A California Post Office

Kerry Revives 2004 Election Allegations

James Carville: "We Have To Go Back To 1974 (During Watergate) To Find Such A Favorable Environment. If We Can't Win In This Environment, We Have To Question The Whole Premise Of The Party.''

WV-01: Wakim Vs. Mollohan

NY-24: Meier Vs. Arcuri

Geneive Abdo: America's Muslims Aren't As Assimilated As You Think (Free Wapo Reg Req)

Mary Katharine Ham: Why We Don't Believe You

Sebastian Mallaby: Shopping for Support Down the Wrong Aisle (Free WAPO Reg Req)

Michael Barone: As Election Looms, GOP Seeing ‘Terrorist Factor’ Bounce In Polls

Dungeon Captor 'Part Of My Life'

Former Iraqi Dictator Saddam Hussein Is Being Made To Watch His Appearance In Cult Cartoon South Park While He Is Behind Bars (Hahahaha)

Website Of The Day: Political Mavens

One of themes Democrats love to hammer home is multilateralism. We've got to get more nations on board! We've got to reach out! It's all about allies, allies, allies!

Yet, many of those very same Democrats often strike a dismissive and insulting pose towards the nations that do ally with us.

Remember this quote from Maureen Dowd?

"You wonder how many votes (Bush) scared off with that testosterone festival: the taunting message, the self-righteous geographic litany of support? The Philippines. Thailand. Italy. Spain. Poland. Denmark. Bulgaria. Ukraine. Romania. The Netherlands. Norway. El Salvador.

Can you believe President Bush is still pushing the cockamamie claim that we went to war in Iraq with a real coalition rather than a gaggle of poodles and lackeys?"

Then there was the Kerry campaign in 2004:

"Americans Overseas for Kerry is the Kerry operation for winning the crucial votes of Americans living abroad (remember the Florida recount?), including more than 100,000 who live in Australia. Its leader was interviewed Sept. 16 by The Australian's Washington correspondent, Roy Eccleston. Asked if she believed the terrorist threat to Australians was now greater because of the support for President Bush, she replied: "I would have to say that," noting that "[t]he most recent attack was on the Australian embassy in Jakarta."

She said this of her country (and of the war that Australia is helping us with in Iraq): "[W]e are endangering the Australians now by this wanton disregard for international law and multilateral channels." Mark Latham could not have said it better. Nor could Jemaah Islamiah, the al Qaeda affiliate that killed nine people in the Jakarta bombing.

This Kerry spokesman, undermining a key ally on the eve of a critical election, is no rogue political operative. She is the head of Americans Overseas for Kerry -- Diana Kerry, sister to John."

There are plenty of other examples out there as well, but let's get on to why this is relevant: failed ex-President Jimmy Carter's latest comments.

Here's what one of the worst Presidents in the last 100 years had to say about Britain, the United States' most useful ally by far:

"Tony Blair's lack of leadership and timid subservience to George W Bush lie behind the ongoing crisis in Iraq and the worldwide threat of terrorism, according to the former American president Jimmy Carter.

"I have been surprised and extremely disappointed by Tony Blair's behaviour," he told The Sunday Telegraph.

"In many countries where I meet with leaders and private citizens there is an equating of American policy with Great Britain - with Great Britain obviously playing the lesser role.

"We now have a situation where America is so unpopular overseas that even in countries like Egypt and Jordan our approval ratings are less than five per cent. It's a shameful and pitiful state of affairs and I hold your British Prime Minister to be substantially responsible for being so compliant and subservient."

So, here we have a former President of the United States saying he's, "extremely disappointed," with Tony Blair for standing shoulder to shoulder with the United States in Iraq and calling him, "compliant and subservient?" That's the sort of thing you'd expect to hear from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Osama Bin Laden, not from a former President of the United States.

What it all comes down to is that Carter, Kerry, Dowd and these other liberals with similar mentalities have gotten so carried away with their hostility to Bush and their "blame America first attitude," that they've actually started to become hostile to countries for no other reason than because they're friendly to America. That is incredibly foolish and irresponsible and in a saner world, Jimmy Carter and his ilk would be subjected to withering criticism, from both sides of the aisle, for acting against the best interests of the United States.

Chris Wakim has a very impressive background. He's a Christian conservative who is the grandson of immigrants from Lebanon. He was educated at West Point and Harvard and then went into the military, where he worked his way up to "Captain in command of a mechanized infantry company in the Fourth Infantry Division." Chris also married his high school sweetheart, started a successful career in business, and won on his first attempt to get into the West Virginia House of Delegates in 2002.

Now, Chris has set his sights on incumbent Democrat, Alan Mollohan, in West Virginia's first district. Does he have a chance? In a district that went 58% to 42% for George Bush in 2004? You bet!

I got together with Chris on Thursday of last week for a short phone interview. What follows is an edited transcript of our conversation.

John Hawkins: Now Alan Mollohan has had some ethical problems. Tell us about those.

Chris Wakim: Alan Mollohan has been sitting on the Appropriations Committee, as a senior member, and has been in Congress 24 years...A few years ago, he started a number of 501(c)3 non-profit organizations, 5 of them to be exact. What he has done is he's personally enriched himself through his position on Appropriations by establishing these 501(c)3 non-profits. He staffed these non-profits with his former staffers and his friends. He established earmarks that go to these 501(c)3 non-profits and the money has come back to him via campaign contributions, personal loans, and business arrangements with the people who control the earmarks.

Now, as you're probably aware, he's under investigation for that very thing. So, I don't know if what he has done is illegal. That's for the Justice Department to decide -- but, it's clearly unethical.

John Hawkins: So, he's definitely using his own position to put money in his pockets at the expense of the taxpayers?

Chris Wakim: Yes, absolutely. And this is clearly something that (needs to be explained). His FEC report in 2000 -- he was worth somewhere around $100,000. Then in 2004, his net worth had increased up to $26.9 million dollars....This guy should not be running for Congress. This guy should be the Federal Reserve Chair if he can turn that kind of a profit in that period of time....He's way too busy helping himself to help his constituency.

John Hawkins: If a voter from your district were to come up to you and say, "Chris, give me 3 differences between you and the incumbent, Alan Mollohan, that would convince me to vote for you, what would you say to him?"

Chris Wakim: That's a simple one. The first one is the security of our nation and our borders. My opponent voted against securing the borders. He voted against the Patriot Act...twice. He voted against the establishment of Homeland Security. Now, it's my opinion as a veteran and someone who has a little common sense, that we are clearly fighting a war on terror. That war on terror needs to be fought overseas, as opposed to here, and my opponent is clearly out of touch with the values of my district. That's number one.

Number two, West Virginia was rated by Forbes as 49th in the nation in terms of business environment. We need to put money back in the pockets of people who earn it. We need to cut taxes, ...cut regulations, and we need to get our hands on frivolous lawsuits. West Virginia is notorious for frivolous lawsuits and we need to address that problem at the Federal level.

Number three, Social Security is an interesting program that clearly needs some work. But, when my constituents have worked all their lives and paid into the system, there's essentially a pact or a guarantee between them and the United States government. People that are currently on or are pending on Social Security benefits, should have their benefits as promised, without a cut in eligibility or a cut in amount. Nor, should those benefits be taxed. My opponent has voted to tax Social Security benefits. To me, that's ill-advised and foolish.

That being said, since the system is clearly headed for a fiscal meltdown somewhere down the road...I think that there need to be changes made for my younger constituency, maybe 30 and under, to address the problem so that the system is solvent by the time they reach retirement age.

John Hawkins: Now, you're a former Army Captain, so you should have a pretty good perspective on the war in Iraq. We've sort of seen things break down into, "Should we cut and run," "should we continue to stick in there and wait until the Iraqis are ready to go before we leave?" Tell us what you think we need to be doing in Iraq.

Chris Wakim: Clearly, we need to assist that infant government, that infant Democracy over there any way we can. That includes supporting and developing their military, supporting their government, establishing a democracy in the Middle-East. ...Democracies don't battle each other, they trade with each other. To the extent that we can establish trade relationships between democratic forms of government in the Middle-East, it's in our long term national interest to do that.

John Hawkins: Let's also talk a little bit about Israel. There has been a lot of controversy, conflict over there with their fighting with Lebanon and the Palestinians. What do you think about the recent fighting that has been happening?

Chris Wakim: My heritage is Lebanese. My family came from the Christian Lebanese sect over there, the Maronites. You know, it's a shame that Israel has to go through this type of continued attack on its people. It is the responsibility, first and foremost of any government, whether it's the United States government or the Israeli government, to protect its people from foreign harm, foreign invasion, or foreign attack. What Israel has done is, frankly, I think a little constrained and measured. But, clearly it needed to be done. I personally hope that the United States -- not the UN, I'm not really fond of the UN...... I think they're fundamentally ineffective -- or maybe the British can assist the Lebanese government in ridding themselves of Hezbollah. ...If the Hezbollah are a threat to Israel,... (then) Israel...needs to defend itself.

John Hawkins: If you knock off Alan Mollohan, what can conservatives across the country expect from you in Congress?

Chris Wakim: I'm a very strong believer in our founding documents. I...am a social and fiscal conservative. I've (run for office) because I've served in the military for 11 years and I understand the nature of a threat. I've run a business in this state for quite a number years since I left the military. I understand the impact of taxation. I understand the impact for excessive regulation and overarching and overreaching government and how that impacts people out there making a living.

...I make the best determination of what is right for my family, not the government. I make the best determination of (how I should spend) the money that I earn, not the government. When government drives the train of the decisions that I make for my family and for my business, that's wrong. That needs to change.

John Hawkins: Last but not least, you're in a district that went heavily for Bush in a year when there's a real anti-incumbent mood. So, how do you think you're doing right now?

Chris Wakim: I think I am doing great. ...What people want (in my district) is someone they can trust -- someone that will clearly represent their views and not someone who is up there helping himself and working only for himself. Now, that's a tough nut to crack, because some people feel that politicians may start off helping the people that sent them there, but they forget their roots. Given the fact that I come from very humble beginnings, I will never forget what this country has done for me or for my family. My family did not have a lot of money, but we were given the opportunity economically to pursue our dreams and we've done very well as a family, and I mean my extended family, which goes all the way back to my grandfather who came over in 1906. I think by touching people in my district with those stories and telling them how I came from virtually nothing, they will appreciate that and they will know that I am working in their interest to allow them to pursue their dreams as well.

John Hawkins: Chris, that's it. Thank you very much!

You can donate to Chris Wakim's campaign at Rightroots.

Seldom do I have a kind word for Democrats on matters of National Security (because seldom do they deserve it). Moreover, as a general rule, it is not in my opinion helpful for a single member of the House to take it upon himself to interfere with America's foreign policy.

That being said, in my book, Tom Lantos deserves a round of applause:

"A key U.S. legislator said in Israel on Sunday he would block aid President George W. Bush promised Lebanon and free the funds only when Beirut agreed to the deployment of international troops on the border with Syria.

The international community must use all our available means to stiffen Lebanon's spine and to convince the government of Lebanon to have the new UNIFIL troops on the Syrian border in adequate numbers," said Tom Lantos, the ranking Democrat on the U.S. House of Representatives' International Relations Committee.

Lantos said he was putting a legislative hold on Bush's proposal to provide $230 million in aid for Lebanon in the aftermath of the 34-day war between Israel and Lebanese Hizbollah guerrillas.

As the top Democrat on the International Relations Committee, Lantos has the power to hold up legislation.

"It is very much my hope that I will be able to lift the hold when the reasons will no longer be present," he said at Israel's Foreign Ministry, where he met Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni after talks with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.

...Lantos, from California, said he would introduce bipartisan legislation to provide more aid to Israel, which already receives more than $2 billion annually in assistance from the United States.

"Lebanon will get help from both Europe, the Arab world and the United States. Unless the United States provides some aid to Israel, Israel receives no aid," Lantos said.

He did not provide any estimate of how much money he would seek for Israel."

Good for Lantos because he's doing exactly what George Bush and the Israelis should be doing: insisting that the UN and Lebanon make a good faith effort to live up to the terms to the latest resolution.

It's about time somebody did that, because the backpedalling has gotten so fast and furious at this point that this "ceasefire" is apparently going to consist of nothing more than 15,000 blue helmeted tourists going to Lebanon:

"The United Nations peacekeeping force to be deployed in Lebanon is facing further criticism after the admission that its forces will not even be allowed to intercept shipments of arms to Hezbollah from Syria.

Speaking in Brussels before heading to the region, Kofi Annan, pictured below, the UN Secretary-General, confirmed that the 15,000-strong force will not meet Israeli demands to police the routes used by the militia to smuggle missiles from Syria.

"Troops are not going in there to disarm - let's be clear," he said. Instead, the Unifil force will only carry out interception missions if asked by the Lebanese government - which has made no such request. Syria, meanwhile, accused by Israel of re-arming Hezbollah during the recent conflict, has said the deployment of any UN forces near its border would be considered a "hostile act".
advertisement

Mr Annan's disclosure of more limits on the UN force's remit will act as a further blow to its credibility as a peacekeeping force. It is already devoid of any mandate to disarm Hezbollah of its existing weapons, and now appears powerless to stop the militia re-arming."

So, these troops aren't going to disarm Hezbollah or prevent Syria from shipping them weapons. That begs a very basic question: what the hell is the point of their going to Lebanon supposed to be, exactly?

All, that's happening is that we're going right back to the status quo, except the number of useless Unifil "peace keepers," that don't actually keep the peace, will be larger. This is nothing more than a face saving maneuver, similar to the one Bill Clinton did with North Korea. Israel shouldn't put up with this and more importantly, George Bush shouldn't put up with this. If it takes a Democrat like Tom Lantos putting a hold on funds for Lebanon to get that point across, then so be it.

The anti-Christian zealotry in the United States hasn't gone this far yet, but give the ACLU and their liberal buddies enough time and I'm sure they'll get around to it:

"Footballer gets criminal record for making sign of the cross

The Catholic Church has condemned the cautioning of a Polish footballer for gestures which allegedly included blessing himself at an Old Firm match.

Celtic goalkeeper Artur Boruc was cautioned after complaints were made about his behaviour at Ibrox Stadium in Glasgow in front of Ranger's fans.

Strathclyde Police investigated claims that Boruc, 26, angered a section of the home support after allegedly making the religious gesture at the start of the second half of the game on February 12.

A Crown Office spokesman said: "The procurator fiscal has issued an alternative to prosecution in this case.

"On this occasion, the actions included a combination of behaviour before a crowd in the charged atmosphere of an Old Firm match which provoked alarm and crowd trouble and as such constituted a breach of the peace.

...Church spokesman Peter Kearney said: "It is extremely regrettable that Scotland seems to have made itself one of the few countries in the world where this simply religious gesture is considered an offence."

Yes, you're reading that right. The police actually spent months investigating a soccer player for publicly making the sign of the cross and "cautioned" him about it.

As Jean Schilawski said in the Daily Mail comments section,

"And, crossing oneself is "criminal"! What is this world coming to! Or, going (to)!"

Hat tip to Tongue Tied for the story.

"...(O)n the eve of the 2004 election, an election dominated by “moral values” voters (despite what some have written), fully 42% of Americans saw the Democrat Party as “friendly toward religion.”

Of course, the Dems got walloped in 2004, largely because they were so remarkably out-of-step with the values of those “values voters”. The Dems then embarked on a remarkable propaganda campaign designed to “take back the faith” from religious conservatives. This effort was led by people like Howard Dean, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, and … well, you get the picture.

The campaign was a flop. One year later, after all this posturing, the percentage of Americans who viewed the Dems as “religion friendly” plummeted to 29%.

Another campaign seemed to pick up; this one more serious. Genuine liberal Christians like Jim Wallis and Tony Campolo took the reigns of the religious left movement from out of the hands of the blowhard politicians. As Steve Waldman has written in Slate, “A week doesn’t seem to pass without some group convening a conference on religion and liberalism.”

… And the percentage of Americans who viewed the Dems as a “religion friendly” party fell again! This time to 26%." -- Patrick Hynes

If you're a young, black American, would you be safer serving in Iraq or walking the mean streets of the city of Brotherly Love? The answer may surprise you:

"Between March 21, 2003, when the first military death was recorded in Iraq, and March 31, 2006, there were 2,321 deaths among American troops in Iraq. Seventy-nine percent were a result of action by hostile forces. Troops spent a total of 592,002 "person-years" in Iraq during this period. The ratio of deaths to person-years, .00392, or 3.92 deaths per 1,000 person-years, is the death rate of military personnel in Iraq.

How does this rate compare with that in other groups? One meaningful comparison is to the civilian population of the United States. That rate was 8.42 per 1,000 in 2003, more than twice that for military personnel in Iraq.

The comparison is imperfect, of course, because a much higher fraction of the American population is elderly and subject to higher death rates from degenerative diseases. The death rate for U.S. men ages 18 to 39 in 2003 was 1.53 per 1,000 -- 39 percent of that of troops in Iraq. But one can also find something equivalent to combat conditions on home soil. The death rate for African American men ages 20 to 34 in Philadelphia was 4.37 per 1,000 in 2002, 11 percent higher than among troops in Iraq. Slightly more than half the Philadelphia deaths were homicides.

The death rate of American troops in Vietnam was 5.6 times that observed in Iraq."

Despite everything we've heard about, "breaking the military," and how we can't sustain the sort of losses we've taken in Iraq, the truth is that our losses have been extremely light. That's certainly no consolation if you've had a friend or relative killed fighting for freedom in Iraq, but it does show you how negative and warped the mainstream media's coverage of Iraq has been.

This woman’s got the right idea:

Caption: Marge Trowbridge, a lone supporter of President George W. Bush, carries a sign claiming she is surrounded by idiots as she walks in front of an anti-war protest on Ocean Avenue in Kennebunkport, Maine, Saturday afternoon Aug. 26, 2006. President Bush is visiting his parents for the weekend as part of his summer vacation. (AP Photo/Stephan Savoia)

You go, girl!

Here’s more of the types of idiots she’s talking about.

Update: Speaking of idiots…

This content was used with the permission of Sister Toldjah.

Just hours after Iran opened a new plant capable of making plutonium “for peaceful purposes”, U.S. President George Bush assured his Iranian counterpart that any B-2 Bombers that appear over Tehran in the near future would also serve peaceful purposes.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad cut the ribbon on the new heavy-water nuclear plant Saturday as part of a month-long Iranian tribute to the effectiveness of the United Nations.

Mr. Bush hailed Iran’s “transparent diplomacy” and said, “I called President Ahmadinejad today to congratulate him, and I told him that if he happens to notice one of them Stealth bombers going over his town at about 600 miles per hour, he can be assured that the pilot has only the best intentions in his heart for world peace.”

“There’s nothing like the B-2 when it comes to giving peace a chance,” Mr. Bush added.

This satire was used with the permission of Scrappleface.

Ten British Holidaymakers Among 21 Hurt In Turkish Resort Explosions

Defying U.N., Iran Opens Nuclear Reactor

Fox News Crew Freed After Gaza Ordeal -- Forced To Convert To Islam At Gunpoint

UN Will Not Stop Syria Sending Weapons To Lebanon (Israel Should Start Bombing Again)

Hezbollah Leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah Said In A TV Interview Aired Sunday That He Would Not Have Ordered The Capture Of Two Israeli Soldiers If He Had Known It Would Lead To Such A War.

IDF Uncovers Hizbullah Bunker (Free Jerusalem Post Reg Req)

Witnesses: Israel Strikes Reuters Car

Russian Scientist Predicts Global Cooling

49 Killed, One Survivor, In Kentucky Plane Crash

Richard Armitage Was The Original Plame Leaker

Nancy Pelosi: "Anybody Knows Not To Mess With Me"

Greg Mitchell's Media Shenanigans

Farmers Branch, Texas: A City Proposal Would Prohibit Landlords From Leasing To Illegal Immigrants

Steve Laffey: 'I'm Not a Conservative'

Rasmussen Polling: Ohio Senate -- Brown (D) 45% Dewine (R) 42%

The First Post-Macaca Blogospere Straw Poll

Samuel H. Preston and Emily Buzzell: Service in Iraq: Just How Risky? (Free WAPO Reg Req)

David Warren: Faint Hope For Lebanon

Lori Lowenthal Marcus: What Did You Do In The War, UNIFIL? You Broadcast Israeli Troop Movements

Mark Steyn: Homeland Security Can't Get Over The Pump

Gazans Gone Wild

Hitchens Gives the Finger to Maher's Audience for 'Frivolous' Jeering of Bush

Kidnapped Girl Kept Diary During Her Eight-Year Ordeal

Pics: Ultra Close Ups Of Insects

Video: Ronald Reagan Handling A Heckler

Website Of The Day: Dr. Sanity