Week-End Links + Rightroots Blogburst

Today, with your help, we raked in more than $20,000 for the Rightroots candidates. That's a heck of a good day -- although we still need more help to reach our donation goals. If you haven't donated yet (or even if you have) and would like to help out, chipping in a small amount to each candidate or to a group of candidates this week-end would really help us out.

Also, I am out of here until Monday. Until then, enjoy the links below, have a great week-end, and consider this to be an open thread.

*****

Today is the Rightroots blogburst. There are bloggers all across the right side of the blogosphere linking to Rightroots in an attempt to give our candidates a boost in the 15 day challenge.

Our goal is to get 100 donations per candidate by the end of the day on Sept. 20 and we can use all the help we can get from across the blogosphere to make that happen. So, if you're a blogger and you promote Rightroots today, I'm going to be linking you in multiple Rightroots updates today.

Also, anyone at RWN who wants to chip in a few bucks -- thank you. Even if you don't have a lot of money to chip in, every little bit counts. A small contribution to a handful of candidates or better yet all the candidates would really move us along towards our goal.

PS: If you do put in some money today, say something in the comments section. It would be interesting to know which candidates people supported and why.

Participating Blogs In The Blogburst So Far Include:

The Absurd Report
Ace of Spades HQ
Ankle Biting Pundits
Baseball Crank
Brainster's Blog
Bright And Early
Captain's Quarters
Cheese And Bacon
Conservative Blog Therapy
Conservative Outpost
Election Projection
Gateway Pundit
Hang Right Politics
Hot Air
The Hotline's Blogometer
Human Events
IMAO
The Kallini Brothers
Lakeshore Laments
Lorie Byrd
Macsmind
Mary Katharine Ham
My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
Noisy Room
Oxblog
Pascoe's Blog
Polipundit
The Real Ugly American
Redstate
Relapsed Catholic
Riehl World View
Sister Toldjah
Stop the ACLU
Townhall Blog
Wizbang
Wuzzadem

Update #1: We've now cracked $70,000 raised overall, but we still need a lot more donations to have a shot of hitting our goal.

Maybe this new graphic, inspired by Allah from Hot Air will help convince people to chip in a few bucks =D

Update #2: Here's another graphic:

Question: "How do you see the next two years in politics breaking down if the Democrats do manage to take back one or both Houses of Congress in November? With Bush's poll numbers as low as they are right now, qualifying him as a near lame-duck already, would anything really be that different? Is anything at all going to get accomplished on the domestic side, regardless of who controls Congress?" -- maledicta

Answer: Here are just a few things that Republicans should think about before they decide to stay home in 2006. If the GOP were to lose the House and Senate, the consequences could include:

* The Democrats cutting off funds to the troops, forcing them to come home, and thereby delivering victory into the hands of the terrorists in Iraq.

* The Dems could systematically block crucial intelligence programs, many of which the general public probably doesn't even know about yet, and leave us wide open for one -- or even a dozen new 9/11s.

* An illegal immigration amnesty plan being pushed through the House that would legalize 12 million plus illegals, their families, and their relatives without securing the border.

* An end to the Bush tax cuts.

* The Democrats would push for new tax increases.

* Spending could INCREASE considerably as Democrats use their stronger position to funnel more pork to their districts and push big government programs.

* If a Supreme Court Justice were to retire and Bush were able to nominate a replacement, the nuclear option would be out of reach and Bush could be forced to nominate a moderate in order to get him through.

* Two years of impeachment attempts for anything and everything the Democrats can come up with.

I will grant you that the Republicans, particularly the Republicans in the Senate and President Bush, haven't done a great job on some key issues that conservatives care about. But, putting more Democrats in office certainly isn't going to improve matters.

Link #1

Link #2

Link #3

Link #4

Link #5

Link #6

Link #7

Link #8

Link #9

Link #10

Link #11

Link #12

Question: "Do you think that John McCain' sensitivty to "torture" by our government is driven by the fact that he was REALLY tortured by the Viet Cong? No Red Hot Chili Peppers from the VC...unless they were being stuffed into some unmentionable place.

I respect McCain's service and the suffering he went through, but it seems that he's going way, way too far in his quest to make sure that "we're better than our enemies". Name one of our opponents since WWII who treated our POWS humanely." -- sterm26

Answer: Is it possible that McCain's judgment has been so clouded by the despicable torture that he received at the hand of the VietCong that he can't objectively look at the situation? Yes, absolutely. Whether that's the case or not, the position that McCain and the Democrats are taking on the tribunals for terrorists is absolutely insane.

What they're essentially saying is that we're not allowed to put these terrorists on trial unless we agree to reveal our most sensitive classified programs to the very people who want to kill us.

It's like a Twilight Zone episode.

Then there's the Geneva Convention, which in the real world, applies to exactly one country on Earth: the United States. We have terrorists, who haven't even signed the agreement and follow no rules of war whatsoever, being treated like a uniformed soldier who was caught after a skirmish on the battle field. One of the express purposes of the Geneva Convention is supposed to be to PREVENT exactly the sort of behavior Al-Qaeda is engaging in by promising that soldiers will be treated well as long as they behave honorably.

But because the Geneva Convention is being turned on its ear by judicial activists in the Supreme Court, we have CIA interrogators who are being told they may be prosecuted for using abusive procedures even though the politicians in the Senate refuse to tell them what those procedures are. In other words, politicians like McCain and Harry Reid want the rules to be determined by judges when the men interrogating these prisoners are sued. That's because they're afraid of coming across as comically weak on national security if they say they want to ban techniques like sleep deprivation and forced exercising.

The problem is that guys like McCain, Colin Powell and pretty much the whole Democratic Party in the Senate would rather see Americans die by tens of thousands rather than risk having the world think we're being "mean" to the people who want to kill us. If you ask me, their priorities are way out of whack. Keeping Americans from being killed in another 9/11 is much more important than being tut-tutted by a bunch of European snobs who have mentalities no different than those of their grandparents who stood by and allowed the Nazis to overrun Europe in WW2.

Update #1: If anything, we're way, way, way too easy on these Al-Qaeda terrorists we've captured. Take a gander at this New York Post column from Richard Minitier, who just got back from Gitmo:

"The high-minded critics who complain about torture are wrong. We are far too soft on these guys - and, as a result, aren't getting the valuable intelligence we need to save American lives.

The politically correct regulations are unbelievable. Detainees are entitled to a full eight hours sleep and can't be woken up for interrogations. They enjoy three meals and five prayers per day, without interruption. They are entitled to a minimum of two hours of outdoor recreation per day.

Interrogations are limited to four hours, usually running two - and (of course) are interrupted for prayers. One interrogator actually bakes cookies for detainees, while another serves them Subway or McDonald's sandwiches. Both are available on base. (Filet o' Fish is an al Qaeda favorite.)

Interrogations are not video or audio taped, perhaps to preserve detainee privacy.

Call it excessive compassion by a nation devoted to therapy, but it's dangerous. Adm. Harris admitted to me that a multi-cell al Qaeda network has developed in the camp. Military intelligence can't yet identify their leaders, but notes that they have cells for monitoring the movements and identities of guards and doctors, cells dedicated to training, others for making weapons and so on.

And they can make weapons from almost anything. Guards have been attacked with springs taken from inside faucets, broken fluorescent light bulbs and fan blades. Some are more elaborate. "These folks are MacGyvers," Harris said.

Other cells pass messages from leaders in one camp to followers in others. How? Detainees use the envelopes sent to them by their attorneys to pass messages. (Some 1,000 lawyers represent 440 prisoners, all on a pro bono basis, with more than 18,500 letters in and out of Gitmo in the past year.) Guards are not allowed to look inside these envelopes because of "attorney-client privilege" - even if they know the document inside is an Arabic-language note written by a prisoner to another prisoner and not a letter to or from a lawyer.

That's right: Accidentally or not, American lawyers are helping al Qaeda prisoners continue to plot.

There is little doubt what this note-passing and weapons-making is used for. The military recorded 3,232 incidents of detainee misconduct from July 2005 to August 2006 - an average of more than eight incidents per day. Some are nonviolent, but the tally includes coordinated attacks involving everything from throwing bodily fluids on guards (432 times) to 90 stabbings with homemade knives.

One detainee slashed a doctor who was trying to save his life; the doctors wear body armor to treat their patients."

Question: Do you think pro wrestling will be able to make its typical cyclical comeback into the mainstream as it did in the mid 80's and 90's? What kind of changes in the industry, talent, or content distribution do you think it would take?" -- Mike_M

Answer: Wrestling's popularity is cyclical, but I think two things have caused their latest big drop in popularity:

#1) No competition: Wrestling as a whole was better off with the WWE, WCW, and ECW all using different styles and talent to compete for fans. Now, you've just got the WWE shows and TNA.

TNA, which puts on a good show, is still really small and the WWE is just awful. When the WWE had competition, they worked hard to put out a good product and it showed. But, now? Their story lines are lame, the matches are dull compared to TNA, and they keep pushing talentless goons for no other reason than they're huge. They're just complacent -- and that shows, too.

#2) They don't have a huge mega draw that can capture the imagination of the fans -- like Hogan in the eighties, Stone Cold, the Rock, or the N.W.O. in their glory days. They still have talent, but they don't have anyone who can carry the company on their shoulders and that hurts.

The best thing that could happen to pro-wrestling would be for TNA to take off and actually pass the WWE in the ratings (which looks unlikely). Then you'd see the WWE get motivated again and some of the old wrestling fans who quit watching years ago might start tuning in again.

Question: "Does America have the stomach for the war on terror or has the left so emasculated our culture that we no longer have the guts to stand up and fight a real war?" -- WSOwen02

Answer: It's human nature to become complacent and to believe that just because things are going OK right now, they'll always be that way. In our case, since we haven't been hit again since 9/11, a lot of Americans just assume that we won't be hit again and think that if we are hit, we'll probably get off light.

Combine that with Democrats, who habitually oppose the most basic measures to defend America from terrorists because they are worried about offending Europe, don't want to make the people who want to kill us madder, figure they can blame an attack on George Bush, etc., etc., and it makes it difficult to get things done sometimes.

Then, you also have to consider that in Iraq and Afghanistan, we're fighting counter insurgencies, not a typical war. Since that's the case, the old WW2 style, "Surrender or we will bomb you and everyone you love back to the stone age," paradigm won't work -- although that could be used in other situations like Iran and Syria, if need be.

Long story short, I hate to say this, but Americans are not going to get deadly serious about doing anything and everything it takes to stop terrorism unless there's another attack in the US or a really huge attack somewhere else that's so big it can't be ignored.

All we can really do in the interim to try to prevent that sort of nightmare scenario is to support tough foreign policy and national security measures, hammer the people that oppose them, and cross our fingers and hope it's enough to keep a lot of Americans from getting killed.

Question: "Has there been technical problems with RWN lately?" -- D-Vega on 2006-09-14

"I've had lots of problems getting to the site, and more problems posting. I was wondering if it was on my end or John's." -- mojoe

Answer: My hosting company, Dreamhost, used to give good service. However, for the last couple of months they've been absolutely horrible and up and down like a yo-yo. I've been raising hell with them about it and they've moved me to a different, supposedly more reliable server, but my confidence in them is shot.

On the upside, I do have a back end upgrade of my content management system coming up soon and by the time that is completed, if I don't see an immediate and significant improvement in their performance, I'm changing hosts.

So, if you've been having problems, it's probably on this end, not yours. Sorry for the inconvenience. On the upside, one way or the other, these issues are going to be corrected very soon.

Update #1:

Question: "On a related note, any chance of a redesign? Methinks it's time. :-)" -- TranslationService

Answer: After the back end upgrade is complete and the hosting problems are resolved, I am planning to find a designer to snazz the look of the page up a bit, although the basic design will have to stay the same for advertising purposes.

Question: "If you had to pick a particular era in the past to live in what would it be?" -- karensp9

Answer: The richest man on the planet a hundred years ago lived a life that was relatively uncomfortable compared to most poor Americans today. I mean, once you've had TV, microwaves, computers, air conditioning and all the other modern conveniences that we take for granted, going back in time would be brutal.

So, let's talk vacationing in time. Let's assume that you could go back in time and watch key historical events unfold without getting killed. There would be a lot of interesting places to go. For example...

-- It would be great to actually meet Jesus.

-- It would be fascinating to watch the Constitution being debated by the Founding Fathers.

There are also lots of historical battles that would be incredible to watch like....

-- Rourke's Drift: Where 4000 Zulus took on less than 150 British soldiers and lost.

-- Thermopylae: Watching the last stand of the 300 Spartans against the entire Persian Army.

-- Gaugamela: Where Alexander defeated Darius and his enormous Persian Army, which included elephants, chariots, and other Greeks in a battle that was, in effect, for control of the Persian Empire.

-- The Battle Of Otumba: Where Hernando Cortes and his men defeated the Aztecs in a battle in which they were outnumbered 100 to 1 or more.

Of course, there are plenty of other battles worth watching, too. However, those are some that immediately come to mind.

In the spirit of Q&A Friday, I have a question for the audience since you guys are spread out all over the country and have probably seen just about every political ad out there.

Of course, there are plenty of candidates running ads accusing their opponents of being soft on illegal immigration. But, anywhere in the country, is there a candidate in a competitive race running an ad bragging about supporting features in the Senate Bill that are not also contained in the House Bill?

In other words, you're hearing lots of talk about cracking down on illegal aliens, fighting amnesty, and a fence from both supporters and opponents of the Senate Bill. But, is any candidate, in any competitive race in the country, trying to use his support of a guest worker program, opposing English as our official language, amnesty, social security for illegals, etc -- or his opponent's opposition to those policies -- as an ASSET to his campaign in an ad?

If the answer to that question is, "no," (and to the best of my knowledge, it is) then doesn't that tell you everything you need to know about how popular the Senate plan really is compared to the House's get tough approach?

Americans for Prosperity Hails House Passage of Earmark Reform, Calls on Senate to Approve Similar Reforms

The House Votes To Build 700 Miles Of Double-Layered Fencing On A 283-138 Vote. 131 Democrats, A Majority, Voted Against The Fence

Senate Panel Defies Bush on Terror (Warner, McCain, Snowe, & Graham Vote With Dems To Undercut The War On Terror)

Michael Hayden, The CIA director, Had Concluded That Under The McCain Legislation, “The CIA Programme Would Have To Be Shut Down” (McCain Can't Be Trusted To Handle The War On Terrorism)

Powell Endorses Efforts To Block Bush's Terrorist Plan (I'm Glad He's No Longer The Secretary Of State)

Group Says It Didn't Plan Tancredo Event

Bob Ney To Plead Guilty On Criminal Charges

Al-Qaida Joins Algerians Against France

Violence After U.S. Troops Raid Iraq Shi'ite Office

U.N. Inspectors Challenge House Nuclear Report On Iran

Lebanese Prime Minister Warns That His Army Will Seize All Weapons Shown Publicly In The South

Dubai's Ruler Accused Of Slavery

Pope's Speech Stirs Muslim Anger

Rasmussen Polling: George Bush's Job Approval: 47%

Democrats Form New Group for Fund-Raising and Ads (Free New York Times Reg Req)

Jim Webb In His Own Words: On Women

Sen. George Allen Got The Endorsement Tuesday Of A Senior Black Democratic State Legislator, Benjamin J. Lambert

GOP Wants Last Minute Candidate Swapping Barred In New Jersey

Defying Pundits, GOP Claims Field Of Competitive Races Is Narrowing

John O'Neill: Swift Boat Leader Responds to Kerry

Victor Davis Hanson: Osama's 9/11 Anniversary

Daniel Henninger: Movies Cover War Better Than News Media

A Short Interview With Mark Steyn

Men Are Slightly More Intelligent Than Women, Claims New Study

Woman Accused In Myspace Murder Plot

'Dog' Arrested At Mexico's Request For Capturing Rapist (This Is Outrageous)

Video: Mary Katharine Ham And Michelle Malkin Chat About Rosey O'Donnell On The View

Humor: Those Darn Christian Extremists

Humor: In My World -- Clinton Visits The White House

Website Of The Day: Rightroots

Today is Q&A Friday #49 at RWN.

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!

Believe it or not, Dr. Seuss used to be a political cartoonist and he did some absolutely phenomenal cartoons that took aim at American isolationists in the run up to WW2, most of whom were in the GOP (although a majority of Americans opposed getting involved in the war until Pearl Harbor).

The funny thing about cartoons like this one is that if you change the foe from the Nazis to the terrorists and their backers, these cartoons are every bit as applicable to the Democrats today as they were to the isolationists back then:

I will say one thing in defense of the isolationists like Charles Lindbergh: after Pearl Harbor, almost all of them changed their minds. In my book, that puts them ahead of the liberals today who still aren't serious about fighting terrorism even after 9/11.

Over at the Democratic Underground, they've got a thread going called, "What still makes you proud to be an American?."

Could it be that they're going to point out, correctly, that this is the greatest nation in the world? That we have the biggest economy? The most powerful military? That we've done more good than every other nation in the world combined? That you have more opportunities here than in any other nation on the planet?

Not quite! Read some of the reasons why the DUer's feel "proud" to be an American and let their "patriotism" and "love of country" just wash over you:

madmax: Nothing Since December 12, 2000 when the USSC broke my heart and forever shattered my faith in America.

Nikki Stone: The Dixie Chicks....and the fact that they're not in prison..........yet. I guess that would be dissent.

Tyo: The fact that so many countries around the world are trying to figure out WTF happened to us. I'm proud that we used to be so much better and I'm hoping we can bring that back.

Nimrod2005: Possibility of watching BushCheneyRummyRice escorted into jail on live TV. One day would make me very proud of America...Proud that at the end of the day, people were held responsible!

pitohui: well if we can expand that to include mexico then this americana is glad that there is some protest being made of stolen elections

leftchick: nothing and it will be less than nothing when the repukes steal yet another election on Nov. 7.

neebob: Proud, schmoud. That attitude is what got us where we are today. It's one thing to have a sense of community, but that's not what proud to be an American is.

Proud to be an American is an unquestioning mindset that grew up pledging allegiance to a piece of cloth and bought into all the false history that was written to justify aggression, theft, and slavery.

Proud to be an American is into mythology, too, and likes to imagine that America is more than a patch of ground and it's more than an accident to have been born on it.

Proud to be an American is too busy making money and buying stuff to really notice the vast machine above its head or think very hard about how that machine affects other citizens of the world and even lots of other citizens of America. Proud to be an American looks at someone who manages to rise to the top of the machine and assumes that person has admirable qualities and good intentions.

Proud to be an American is emotional and irrational. It fails to see things as they really are and is far too slow to recognize crimes and criminals. It's beyond time to stop thinking that way.

Gee, you have to wonder why so many people question their patriotism...Oh wait, I meant to say you DON'T have to wonder why so many people question their patriotism.

Today, John McCain endorsed Rightroots. I know that I have a lot of differences with McCain, but the endorsement for the group is much appreciated and it would be fantastic if more politicians wanted to follow his lead.

Also, there's going to be a Rightroots blogburst tomorrow. All across the blogosphere (hopefully) there are going to be bloggers pitching Rightroots to their readers. If you're a blogger who wants to participate, jump in; the water's warm -- you may make more of a difference than you think. Even if you have 50 readers, one of them might chip in a couple of thousand dollars or even make small donations to all 20 candidates.

If you do write something about Rightroots tomorrow, shoot me an email, trackback to this post, or say something in the comments section and I'll give you a link.

Last but not least, for all of you at Right Wing News, any and all help would be appreciated especially since we really need to get this thing cranked up if we're going to reach our goal of 100 donations per candidate. Even if you can only send in a few bucks, it would be a real help.

Update #1: From the comments section:

"I did what I could what I could afford. Ten bucks apiece across the board." -- DaMav

That's awesome. Great job. If we have more people like you chipping in, we're going to kill our goal.

Rich Lowry, among others, got a meeting with Bush and this quote from W. that he produced really tees me off:

"The President talked about how he has been able to help with the 2006 races, noting money raised and the party’s turnout efforts. “I can help and if I can’t, Laura can.” He explained, “I’m not going to convince Democrats to vote for Republicans, there might be some Independents I can convince, but the key will be whether Republicans understand the stakes.”

This just kills me. Bush and the Republicans in the Senate have spent a good portion of the last 21 months toe kicking conservatives in the crotch on issue after issue, ostensibly, in order to appeal to the middle.

The base has been grousing ceaselessly about spending, but Bush ignores us. Conservatives have been screaming about illegal immigration and what does Bush do? In an election year, he pushes a deal worse than most people had even imagined was possible a year earlier. Then there was the Dubai Port Deal where, right or wrong, Bush undercut his security credentials pushing a deal for the UAE that was dead on arrival the moment it hit the press. Don't even get me started on Harriet Miers.

Now, it's election time and it's, "Gee, Democrats and Independents may not care what I have to say, but I hope the Republicans I've been showing the back of our hand to on key issue after issue understand how important it is to support us!"

I defy anybody to tell me that George Bush and the Republican Party wouldn't be far better off today if they'd catered slavishly to the base on all the above listed issues. Not only would the base be much happier with the GOP today, but I'm of the opinion that Bush's numbers would be significantly higher among Independents as well if he had just gone in the other direction on spending and illegal immigration.

Heck, just having conservatives happy with Bush and saying nice things about him instead of hammering away at him for the last year and a half would probably mean that his numbers with Indies would be 10 or 15 points higher. That's because most people know the mainstream media is biased against Bush and tune what they say out, at least to a certain extent. But, when they hear conservatives ripping Bush, their ears perk up because they know that Republicans are not looking to aim cheap shots at W.

What Bush and these Republicans in the Senate need to do is go back to fundamentals. The first rule of being a successful politician is to keep your core supporters happy. That doesn't mean you do everything they want, but it does mean that you better think long and hard about the implications of crossing them on important issues when you may have to go to them hat in hand later on.

A couple of days ago, I put up a 2008 straw poll, which was sponsored by GOP Bloggers. You can see the overall results here.

First of all, here's some of the raw data for all the participants:

The Top 4 Most Acceptable Candidates

Newt Gingrich: +43.9%
Mitt Romney: +40.9%
Rudy Giuliani: +35.4%
George Allen: +32.4%

The Top 4 Most Unacceptable Candidates

Chuck Hagel: -55%
George Pataki: -49.2%
John McCain: -42.1%
Bill Frist: -28.2%

The Left-Overs

Sam Brownback: -2%
Mike Huckabee: -0.8%
Tom Tancredo: +6.5%

Here are a few thoughts about the results:

-- After putting out the The Conservative Case Against Rudy Giuliani In 2008, I was interested in seeing how it would affect his numbers. That's because my theory is that once conservatives know what Rudy's background is, they're not going to want him as a nominee. So, since presumably, most of the people voting at RWN would have read the article, it would provide an opportunity to see how getting his record out there would affect voters -- and it had a big impact at the beginning.

For the first few hundred votes, Rudy was running roughly between -3% and +3%. Then, surprisingly, his numbers started exploding upwards. He finished at +23.3% at RWN. I was scratching my head about that -- but, then I realized what happened. Several blogs linked directly to the poll on Right Wing News instead of putting up their own polls. That's what caused Rudy's numbers to balloon and pulled him out of the "Left-Overs" category on the RWN poll.

Those early numbers just confirm to me that in 2008, Rudy will be toast once the sort of things I had in the The Conservative Case Against Rudy Giuliani In 2008 become common knowledge.

-- The conventional wisdom early on was that Newt could not be competitive because of his troubled personal life. However, McCain and Rudy have helped change the CW. After all, John McCain is an adulterer and Rudy has a personal life that's every bit as messy as Newt's was. Although it would unquestionably be better to nominate a candidate who hasn't been divorced, if you are going to nominate someone with a messy personal life, a hero of conservatism like Newt would certainly be a better option than McCain or Giuliani.

-- It's fascinating to look at the numbers for the Chuck Hagel supporters and to a lesser extent, John McCain supporters. It's like they're the candidates for Republicans who don't like other Republicans. Amongst the Hagel supporters, the only other candidate who has a positive acceptability ratio is McCain and other popular candidates, like Newt (-38.9%) and Allen (-78.9%), are widely disliked by Hagel supporters. With the McCain supporters, Newt has a low positive rating (+12.2%) and the other 2 candidates with positive numbers are both RINOS: Rudy & Mitt.

-- Mitt Romney is really benefitting from the fact that he's not in DC & people don't know much about him. They see the guy lurching to the right and just assume he's a conservative. Unfortunately, the reality is far different. Since he's in 2nd place, do you think it's time for the Conservative Case Against Mitt Romney?

-- At the moment, I get the impression that most people are not happy with the field and are looking for alternatives. That means there's still a real opportunity out there for a "conservative Howard Dean" to enter the field and blow past the bigger names. In the end, Dean's campaign collapsed because he kept putting his foot in his mouth over and over. But, had he been a smarter politician, he could have been the Dem's nominee in 2004.

That same opportunity is there this time around on the Republican side. A Mark Sanford, Tim Pawlenty, or Haley Barbour could have the opportunity to enter the race as a conservative standard bearer, build up name recognition, and rocket past some of the other bigger name candidates.

Also see,

Machiavel's analysis of the poll at Redstate.

" The median household income of Wal-Mart shoppers is under $40,000. Wal-Mart, the most prodigious job-creator in the history of the private sector in this galaxy, has almost as many employees (1.3 million) as the U.S. military has uniformed personnel. A McKinsey company study concluded that Wal-Mart accounted for 13 percent of the nation's productivity gains in the second half of the 1990s, which probably made Wal-Mart about as important as the Federal Reserve in holding down inflation. By lowering consumer prices, Wal-Mart costs about 50 retail jobs among competitors for every 100 jobs Wal-Mart creates. Wal-Mart and its effects save shoppers more than $200 billion a year, dwarfing such government programs as food stamps ($28.6 billion) and the earned-income tax credit ($34.6 billion). People who buy their groceries from Wal-Mart -- it has one-fifth of the nation's grocery business -- save at least 17 percent." -- George Will

"I distrust the government but as a realistic conservative I think government is staffed with mostly well-intentioned but incompetent people — not because they're dumb, but because bureaucracies are dumb. These conspiracy theorists reverse this entirely. They think government is evil-intentioned but supremely, even divinely, competent." -- Jonah Goldberg

Military Chaplain Convicted Of Saying Prayers 'In Jesus' Name

Mother of Missing Boy Commits Suicide After Brutal CNN Attack Interview

Congress's Republican Leadership Yesterday Threw Its Weight Behind Warrantless Wiretapping And Extrajudicial Military Tribunals (Free Wapo Reg Req)

Air America Denies Bankruptcy Report

Oil: Prices Plunge Below US $64

George Clooney Will Address The UN Security Council On The Crisis In Darfur (Ehr...)

Afghanistan: Fury As Nicey-Nice Brass Call Off Strike On Funeral

Judge-To-Saddam: 'You Were Not a Dictator.' Prosecutor Demands Judge Step Down

Blair Attacks Europe's 'Mad Anti-Americans'

Cartoons Mocking Holocaust Prove A Flop With Iranians

SurveyUSA: Lieberman 51% Vs. Lamont 38% Vs. Schlesinger 7%

SurveyUSA: Allen 48% Vs. Webb 45%

NBC News / Wall Street Journal Poll: Bush Approval 42%

Video: Newest Rick Santorum Ad

Michael Medved: Surprise As America's "Most Popular" Religion

Robert Novak: Real Story Behind Armitage's Role (Novak Rips Armitage To Pieces)

Ann Coulter: If Only Bin Laden Had a Stained Blue Dress...

George Will: Liberalism As Condescension

Anna Smith's Son's Death Suspicious

The Video Of George Bush Being Assassinated In A Movie (Disgusting)

Video: 40 Minute Long Video Of The Popular Mechanics Guys Methodically Destroying The Loose Change Conspiracy Theorists In A Debate

Website Of The Day: Blogging For Bolton

Here are a few pieces of advice that you'd think no one would still need to hear in these days and times.

Don't compare people to Hitler: Andy Warhol once said that, "In the future, everyone will be famous for 15 minutes." Well, the future's here and you could just as easily say that everyone gets compared to Hitler for 15 minutes. Comparing someone to the mustachioed madman is meant to be a biting insult, but it's such an overreaction that it generally reflects more poorly upon the person making the comparison than the target of the insult. After all, if you indicate that someone is like Hitler over some sort of minor disagreement you have with them, the implication is that perhaps you don't really think Hitler was all that bad of a guy. So people should think long and hard before they make that Third Reich comparison.

Don't make jokes about killing public figures, particularly the President. In a hyper polarized world full of nutjobs and Al-Qaeda terrorists, it's generally a poor idea to imply that you wouldn't mind seeing a public figure die, especially if you're talking about the President of the United States. The idea may be to say something funny, but it generally ends up coming across as mean spirited and obnoxious.

Don't be quick to accuse people of treason: The "T" word is inappropriately tossed around far too lightly these days given that life in prison or a death sentence should be the traitor's lot in life. Before calling someone a traitor or accusing them of treason, people should ask themselves whether they would be willing to publicly call for that person to be hung from the gallows for what they've said or done. If the answer is no, then the "T" word shouldn't cross your lips.

Don't mock people after their deaths: Every time a public figure dies these days, it seems that you have people coming out of the woodwork to insult them immediately after their passing. What a classless thing to do. Out of respect for the family, can't people at least wait until the body is in the ground before they start posting on an internet forum about how much they hated the deceased? Anyone other than a terrorist like Osama Bin Laden deserves at least that much courtesy whether you agree with them politically or not.

Don't be a conspiracy theorist: Regrettably, conspiracy theories have made a comeback in politics. On the right you've got people mumbling ominously about "Red China" and NAFTA super highways being part of a plan to merge the US into Canada and Mexico and on the left, you see people claiming the WTC and Pentagon were damaged with bombs planted by the US Government instead of planes hijacked by Al-Qaeda. Whether it's because of a hyper partisan environment that causes people to wink at even the most ludicrous theories proposed by people on "their side" or because, for whatever reason, an increasing number of people have difficulties with basic logic, bizarre conspiracy theories of this sort increasingly are going mainstream. But, as you'd expect given the nature of conspiracy theories, the wild conjecture almost never pans out and the people touting these theories usually end up having their credibility destroyed over the long haul.

Don't treat every Muslim like a terrorist: There are certainly Muslims out there, including members of Al-Qaeda, who have been inspired to kill infidels by their twisted interpretation of their faith. That is undoubtedly true. But, it's one thing to call an Islamo-Fascist an Islamo-Fascist and another thing entirely to lump every Muslim on the planet in with the jihadists.

Our troops, some of whom are Muslims, are fighting shoulder to shoulder with Muslims in nations like Afghanistan and Iraq. There are many Muslims in this country and all over the world who admire America and hate Bin Laden. There are Muslim authors, bloggers and politicians out there talking down terrorism and talking up freedom. It is an enormous mistake to lump all these decent, friendly, people who view themselves as allies of America, in with the Osama Bin Ladens of the world. For most people, that goes without saying. But, there seems to be an increasing number of people out there who need to hear that message again.

Don't engage in Clinton/Bush hatred: Anybody who runs a blog called, "Right Wing News," can certainly understand partisan dislike of political adversaries, but how about a sense of proportion? The sort of red hot, venomous hatred that was unleashed against Bill Clinton in the nineties and George Bush during his time in office has gone too far and has become unseemly. Whatever their faults may be, neither Bill Clinton nor George Bush is the epicenter of evil in the known universe, which sadly, is something that some of their worst critics need to be reminded of yet again.

While I was defending Tom Tancredo from the outrageous smear leveled at him by the Southern Poverty Law Center, I trashed a Southern-successionist group called the League of the South. Apparently that ruffled a few feathers over at the LOS, because some of them have been posting in the comments section and writing me emails. Here's one I got from a Jeffrey D. Murrah:

"Dear John,

Although I applaud your comments about the SPLC, I am concerned that you refer to the League of the South as 'Idiots". What do you mean by that? Is this just a reactionary response or do you seriously see the League of the South as 'idiots'? As a proud member of the League of the South, it concerns me that you consider us idiots. We desire liberty for our families, and our nation. We hold to Christian values and see the current government policies as detrimental to many if not all of those freedoms. When the government places itself above the law as it did in the Montgomery ten commandment case, promotes abortion, goes out of its way to promote and protect illegal Muslim and other thrid world invaders soemthing it wrong. It is wrong when the government purposely removes Christian symbols and runs rough shod over any display of Christian values we speak out against that. We see our cause as that of the Patriots in 1776, Texas in 1836, the Confederacy in 1861 and in the South today.

Is our love of liberty and willingness to speak out the reason we are idiots? We want liberty, we want Christian liberties, we want to raise our families in the land that our forefathers gave us. If that is what makes us idiots, we need more idiots. If that does make us idiots, it could be because we have not been indoctrinated at government schools to believe the party line. I plead guitly of not holding to the party line. Are you guilty of holding to the party line? As larger amounts of our sovreignty are given away, as your parental rights are taken away and other freedoms disappear, will you still maintain the 'party line'? I urge you to reconsider your judgemental reaction to the League and its cause. The cause of the League is the cause of all who cherish liberty and oppose oppressive tyranny, no matter how it is packaged.

Jeffrey D. Murrah
State Chairman
Texas League of the South"

Let me tell you why I called you idiots: setting the racial stuff aside, because I know your group denies being a racist organization and I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt, it's because you're part of a group that explicitly favors secession.

Not only has the question of how to handle secession been decided by the outcome of the Civil war, the American people in both the North and the South overwhelmingly think it was decided the right way. If somehow, someway, Texas seceded tomorrow, the first people calling for the US government to step up and force the state back into the fold would be the overwhelming majority of the people of Texas. The same goes for every single state in the South.

But, of course, you know that. Hence the wording of your email, which talks about Christianity, liberty, parental rights, being tough on illegal immigration, etc. That's not really what the League of the South is all about. If it was, there are hundreds of other organizations that believe in many of those same values that you could have joined. Of course, when you're part of an organization that's all about something like secession, it's hard to blame you for trying to change the subject.

In my book, people with your views are like the flip side of the Yankee snobs who look down on Southerners and regard the men who fought with honor to defend their homes during the war to be evil. Long story short, the Civil War has long since been over and practically no one wants to refight it, so these sort of calls of secession are inappropriate and yes, idiotic.

Also see,

What Caused The Civil War: Slavery Or States' Rights?
Why Democrats Are Losing The South

Update #1: By the way, on a related matter, I spoke to a media guy over at the Southern Poverty Law Center today and clearly explained to him that not only do Tancredo's people deny that the LOS sponsored the event, but James Layden, the Chairman of the South Carolina League of the South, denies that his group sponsored the event.

So, the SPLC is aware that their story is wrong and yet, not only have they not corrected the record, they've actually added a graphic to the story instead of correcting the record. That tells me that the Southern Poverty Law Center is a fundamentally dishonest group.

PS: Here's more from the Rocky Mountain News and the Carlsbad Current-Argus that show the SPLC is absolutely wrong.

-- Rhode Island: This Senate race was destined to be a lose-lose affair no matter how it turned out since we had Steve Laffey, a guy who couldn't win in the general election, going up against ultra-RINO, Lincoln Chafee. Intriguingly, Lincoln Chafee only won 54% vs. 46%, which means that 46 out of every 100 voters in the primary were so frustrated with him that they decided that they'd rather lose the seat to the Dems than have him back.

The good news is that this race is now a toss-up, which means that it will soak up millions of dollars that the cash-strapped Democrats desperately need elsewhere. The bad news is that even if we win the seat, we just get Chafee back for 6 more years.

PS: Laffey is more conservative than Chaffey, but despite what's being written all over the web, he's not a conservative. Late last month, Laffey himself bluntly said so:

"I'm not a conservative"

-- I'd like to try a little bit of a different pitch for Rightroots today. I know there are a lot of you out there who'd like to contribute to Rightroots, but don't have a lot of money to spend.

Here's the good news: because we're doing a 15 day challenge that's centered around raising donations, not a particular amount of cash, this is your chance to make a much bigger impact than normal with a much smaller amount of money.

You want to give $10 to a candidate so you can contribute? Great, go for it. We appreciate the money and it puts us closer to our donation goal. You want to give $5 a pop to all 21 candidates? Fantastic, you just spent a hundred bucks and pumped up our totals by 21.

Every little bit counts. So, we'd certainly appreciate it if you contribute.

-- In Maryland, Ben Cardin beat Kweisi Mfume, which is bad news for Michael Steele. Had Mfume won, the race would have been a toss-up, but since Cardin pulled it out, the seat is, for the moment, leaning Democratic.

-- In Arizona, conservative Randy Graf beat Republican Party backed RINO Steve Huffman 43.2% to 37.2% despite the fact that the GOP spent $200,000 pushing Huffman. Apparently, Huffman hasn't conceded yet either. That shows a lot of class.

PS: So, the GOP wasted $200,000, in a Republican Primary, pumping up a candidate that the voters rejected, mainly because he was soft on illegal immigration. Wouldn't it have been smarter to stay out of the primary and spend the money in the race against the Democrat? Of course, it would have!

-- You've been hearing a lot of people claim that the Democrats are practically fated to take over Congress in November. I haven't been buying into that line and still don't, in part, because of this:

"The Republican National Committee (RNC) will spend its entire bank account, $60 million or more, helping Republicans try to retain control of Congress in the midterm elections.

The looming spending spree appears to have spurred Democratic House leaders to reach agreement over how much the Democratic National Committee (DNC) will help counter this onslaught.

The relationship between the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) and DNC has been rocky. There is dispute over whether it took House Democratic Caucus Chairman James Clyburn’s (S.C.) intervention to broker the deal announced yesterday under which part of the DNC’s $12 million will be funneled to 40 House races. Targeted House Democratic candidates will receive about $60,000 from the party committee.

...One GOP source familiar with Mehlman’s plans said the committee would raise money aggressively through the fall and would probably collect $15 million to add to its account. The RNC had $43.6 million in the bank at the end of July.

The DNC reported $11.3 million in cash on hand at that time."

-- Mike McGavick has been breathing down Maria Cantwell's neck in the Washington race, but his numbers have completely tanked. The latest Rasmussen poll has him down by 17 points to Cantwell and I tend to doubt if that's a statistical blip.

-- In Tennessee, things are looking worse than expected as well. SurveyUSA has Harold Ford up over Bob Corker 48% vs. 45% -- and again, that's probably not a statistical blip. Everyone seems to be assuming that this seat leans Republican, but if you look at the polling data, they've been running even for about a month now. TN may have a Republican lean, but make no mistake about it, Ford is definitely capable of winning this seat which means that the GOP now has 6 seats (Corker, Santorum, Chafee, Burns, DeWine, Talent) that are toss-ups or worse, while the Dems only have one seat in that same position (Menendez).

Boy, the new Dixie Chicks fluff-u-mentary really sounds like a fab film. Here's a little preview:

"In one memorable scene, Maines watches news footage of the president being interviewed about the furor that followed the singer's on-stage comment that she was ''ashamed the President of the United States is from Texas,'' which resulted in the group being dropped from most radio stations, as well as protests and plummeting sales. ''The Dixie Chicks are free to speak their mind,'' Bush told Tom Brokaw at the time, adding, ''They shouldn't have their feelings hurt just because some people don't want to buy their records when they speak out. You know, freedom is a two-way street.''

After watching this footage, Maines repeats the president's comment about how the group shouldn't have their ''feelings hurt,'' incredulous, and then says, ''What a dumb f---.'' She then looks into the camera, as if addressing Bush, and reiterates, ''You're a dumb f---.''

...When it comes to country radio, most of whose stations stopped playing the group at least temporarily in 2003, Maines says at the time, ''The people that abandoned us, I'm never gonna talk to again. The people that supported us are gonna get more love than they've ever seen.'' But three years later, she's the one vehemently arguing against their music even being serviced to country stations that are open to playing the trio, when their manager suggests that the label at least be allowed to make a token effort to work it at that format. ''I just feel like, let country music rest,'' Maines says in a group meeting."

So, the Dixie Chicks insult Bush overseas, get blowback, get mad at Bush for not -- what exactly -- not encouraging people to buy their records after they insulted him? Then, you've got Maines, a singer from a country band who is making clear she doesn't like country music stations, calling Bush a "dumb f---?"

Has this been a great career move? Not especially:

"...(T)he numbers aren`t in the ballpark of the trio`s 2003 tour, which grossed more than $62 million (tops for country that year) and moved more than 1 million tickets.

...Truth is, the Dixie Chicks` Accidents & Accusations tour has grossed nearly $10 million from the 17 shows reported to Billboard Boxscore so far this year. That`s an average nightly gross of $583,981 and an average attendance of more than 9,000 per night.

...And the Dixie Chicks have in the past sold a lot of tickets to country fans, many of whom obviously aren`t buying this time around. 'One of the problems we`re having in penetrating the country audience is that country radio won`t even take our money for advertising,' Phillips says. 'So, we don`t know if it`s the fans not supporting the Chicks and their music, or not knowing how to support them when they come to town.'

...Regardless, there still appears to be no love lost between the Dixie Chicks and country radio, which introduced the trio to the world. "The fact that country radio won`t even take our money for advertising is a sad commentary on the state of this country," Phillips says."

If you ask me, it couldn't have happened to a more deserving trio...

"Radical Christianity is just as threatening as radical Islam in a country like America." -- Rosie O'Donnell

"Thirteen French tanks, the most powerful armor ever deployed by a U.N. peacekeeping force, rolled ashore Tuesday, beefing up a mission aimed at helping cement an uneasy cease-fire in Lebanon...."

13 whole tanks -- driven by the French of all people -- comprises the most powerful armored force the UN has ever rolled out on a peace keeping mission? Just that one line tells you everything you need to know about how weak and ineffective forces run by the United Nations are.

Update #1: From the comments section:

"French tanks come with six gears. Five are for reverse, and one for forward, in case they are attacked from the rear." -- StanW

Heh.

Syrians Foil US Embassy Bombing

Federalism Plan Dead, Says Iraqi Speaker (Free WAPO Reg Req)

Captured Document: AP Employee Spied For Saddam

Average Gas Price Falls 11 Cents A Gallon In A Week

U.N. Emerges As a ‘Wedge' In Election

GOP Video: Democratic Hypocrisy On Intelligence

In Setback For Democrats, Incumbent Wins Republican Senate Primary (Free New York Times Reg Req)

Rival Admits To Taking Private Audio Recordings Of Schwarzenegger's Website And Leaking Them To The Press

Rasmussen Senate Race In Washington: Cantwell(D) 52%, McGavick (R) 35%

SurveyUSA On The TN Senate Race: Ford (D) 48% Vs. Corker (R) 45%

John Perry: A Straight Al-Qaida Ticket

James B. Meigs: Creating Crazed '9/11 Truth

Amir Taheri: Osama's Error

David Frum: President John McCain? Not Likely

Thomas Sowell: Cheap Shot Journalism

Michelle Malkin: Kill Bush Mania

Jonah Goldberg: Conspiracy Nation

House GOP Leaders Fight Wiretapping Limits (Free WAPO Reg Req)

Natalie Maines Calls The President A ''Dumb F---'' In New Documentary

Halloween Costumes For Pets (Ugghhh)

Humor: Top 9 Real Bill Clinton Complaints About "The Path To 9/11"

Website Of The Day: FullosseousFlap’s Dental Blog

Earlier today, I was very surprised to read -- at the left wing Southern Poverty Law Center -- that Tom Tancredo had attended a fund raiser thrown by a group called the League of the South. Here's what the SPL had to say:

"...(T)he state chapter of the League of the South (LOS), a neo-Confederate hate group, hosted a barbeque in honor of Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo, head of the House Immigration Reform Caucus and likely contestant in the 2008 GOP presidential primary. Proceeds from the $15 per-plate fundraiser went to Americans Have Had Enough!, a South Carolina-based non-profit coalition for which Tancredo serves as honorary chairman.

While Tancredo's hard-line "deport 'em all" stance on immigration has made him a favorite politician of white supremacists, this marked the first time the congressman has appeared at a hate group event."

To tell you the truth, I had never heard of the League of the South, so I went to their website to check them out and -- yes, they're a real gang-of-idiots. Just look at this excerpt from a petition on their website and you'll see what I mean:

"When they left the union in 1860-61, they were opposed by Lincoln and the Republican Party, who invaded the South rather than acknowledge that a State has the right to secede. Unfortunately, our Confederate ancestors were defeated and brutally forced to return to what became an involuntary "union." In fact, after 1865 the United States became a "Consolidated Nation-State," the very thing that the Founding Fathers dreaded most. By signing this petition and leaving your comments, you will be voicing your support for the South's right--then and now--to secede from the current regime and to form its own government or governments as free men and women."

Just to hammer home the point, here's a poll from their website:

So obviously, these guys are a little cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs, if you know what I mean.

That's why I could not understand why Tom Tancredo would go to a fund raiser run by these clowns. Here's the rub: it turns out that the Southern Poverty Law Center got it wrong. The League of the South didn't throw the fund raiser. I can tell you that definitely because I talked to Tancredo's press guy, Carlos Espinosa.

Carlos told me that the fund raiser was thrown by Americans Have Had Enough! and the Sons of Confederate Veterans, a group open to, "male descendants of any veteran who served honorably in the Confederate armed forces," that is, "devoted exclusively to commemorating and honoring Confederate soldiers."

As far as the League of the South goes, Carlos said that they never dealt with those guys and, "For all we know, none of them even showed up."

So, how did the SPL wrongly conclude that the League of the South sponsored the event? Well, apparently, someone at the South Carolina chapter wrote this in their news section:

Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-Colorado) will be our guest at the Visa Room of the SC State Museum at 11:00 AM, Saturday September 9th. Barbecue will be furnished by Maurice Bessinger's Piggy Park. The cost per plate will be approximately $20.00 with proceeds going to Congressman Tancredo's 501 (c) (4) organisation, "America has had enough".

Had the SPL gotten in contact with Americans Have Had Enough! or Tancredo's campaign, they would have found out that these guys had nothing to do with the event. Perhaps the Southern Poverty Law Center can explain that when they correct the record and, if they have any common decency, apologize to Tom Tancredo for smearing him in this fashion.

Update #1: I spoke to James Layden, the Chairman of the South Carolina League of the South. He was very polite, but was also a little foggy on what his group's involvement was with the event, if they had any beyond encouraging their members to go. However, he did say definitively that they did not sponsor the event.

We're looking to pull in 100 donations for each of our 21 candidates over at Rightroots. Towards that end, I'm going to be doing profiles of our candidates each day in order to give you a better idea of whom you'd be giving money to. Today, the candidates profiled will be Michele Bachmann and Chuck Blasdel.

Candidate #1: Michele Bachmann

District: (MN-06)
Seat Currently Held By: Mark Kennedy (R)
Candidate + cash on hand: Michele Bachmann ($666,257)
Opponent + cash on hand: Patty Wetterling ($800,525)
Kerry vs. Bush in 2004: 42% vs. 57%
Latest polling: Constituent Dynamics (Generic Ballot): (R) 53% vs. (D) 42%
Webpage: here

Other: -- Wetterling lost to Kennedy in 2004 54-46
-- Larry Sabato calls this race a toss-up.

Candidate #2: Chuck Blasdel

District: (OH-6)
Seat Currently Held By: Ted Stickland (D)
Candidate + cash on hand: Chuck Blasdel ($290,441)
Opponent + cash on hand: Charlie Wilson ($277,155)
Kerry vs. Bush in 2004: 49% vs. 51%
Latest polling: Constituent Dynamics: Wilson 56% vs. Blasdel 40%
Webpage: here

Other: -- You can read the RWN interview with Blasdel here.
-- The NRCC has made an enormous media buy in this race.

You can contribute to either of these candidates and help us meet out goal for the 15 day challenge by chipping in a few bucks here, at Rightroots.

It hasn't been getting a lot of play around the blogosphere for some reason, but there are three big primary races today including:

1) Lincoln Chafee (R) vs. Steve Laffey (R) (Rhode Island): Mediocre RINO Lincoln Chafee is widely disliked -- with good reason, by many Republicans. Unfortunately, his opponent, Steven Laffey, whose biggest positive quality is not being Lincoln Chafee, can't win in the general election.

Because of that, we've been treated to the one of the sorriest spectacles in American politics this year: the Republican Party pulling out all the stops to help a candidate who didn't even vote for Bush in 2004, beat another Republican in a primary.

Who's going to win? The polls have been all over the place (There have been 30 point spreads between some of these poll numbers) and since it's an open primary, Democrats can vote as well, which makes it very difficult to predict.

The Consequences: If Chafee wins, the Rhode Island race becomes a toss-up. If Laffey wins, the GOP loses the seat, but we also get rid of the only left-of-center Republican in the Senate. So, it's a mixed bag, no matter who wins.

2) Randy Graf (R) vs. Steve Huffman (R) (AZ-08): The retiring Republican in this district, Jim Kolbe, is a RINO. But, it is a Republican district. Bush won it by 4 points in 2000 and 7 points in 2004.

That's why the Republican Party's heavy involvement in the primary is so puzzling. The GOP has spent over $200,000 pushing a RINO, Steve Huffman. Ostensibly, this is because Huffman would have a better chance against Gabrielle Giffords, the Democrat in the race. However, the latest polling data shows Giffords up by 10 points on Graf and up by 3 points on Huffman. How much of that 7 point difference between Huffman and Graf's numbers can be attributed to the GOP making it clear that they don't want Graf as a candidate and spending $200,000 on Huffman's behalf? Probably a good bit of it. Had the GOP simply waited for the primary to play out and spent the same $200,000 pushing Graf, it's entirely possible that he could have had better numbers than Huffman has today after the money was spent.

Who's going to win? There are 5 Republican candidates duking it out and the GOP has spent an enormous amount pushing Huffman at the last moment, so it's hard to say at this point, although Graf has been leading in the polls.

The Consequences: This is Republican Party bungling at its worst and it's a prime example of why the GOP shouldn't be getting involved in a primary. The hard feelings and vicious attacks launched back and forth as a result of the GOP interference in this race have probably reduced the chances that the GOP will hold the seat although either Graf or Huffman are still capable of pulling it out.

3) Ben Cardin (D) vs. Kweisi Mfume (D) (Maryland): The winner of this race goes toe to toe with Michael Steele.

Who's going to win? Cardin and Mfume have been neck and neck in the polls and there are several smaller candidates in the race that will peel off a few points each. So, it's hard to say who is going to win this one.

The Consequences: Cardin is definitely the stronger candidate and has been consistently outpolling Steele by a few points. On the other hand, Mfume is running a trainwreck of a campaign and has been polling even or a little behind Steele. So, if Cardin wins, Steele will have an uphill climb. But, if Mfume wins, Steele might even be a slight favorite in a race against Mfume.

From the AP:

"The nations of the world joined Monday in solemn remembrance of Sept. 11 - but for many, resentment of the United States flowed as readily as tears.

Critics say Americans have squandered the goodwill that prompted France's Le Monde newspaper to proclaim "We are all Americans" that somber day after the attacks, and..."

Stop right there. I am so sick and tired of hearing people talk about that one headline in the cheese-eating-surrender-monkey journal, as if it actually represents how France and the rest of Europe really felt. Moreover, the whole idea that we must have "squandered" that "good will" (which is really just another variation of, "why do they hate us") is completely asinine.

Let's do a little recap of the last hundred years or so, shall we?

WW1: After the Russians left the war, the Germans started driving the French and Brits back. They were actually shelling Paris when we showed up and saved them.

WW2: This time around, the Germans ran over the French like Lance Armstrong at the Tour de France. We liberated them from the Germans.

Vietnam: Remember Vietnam? Wasn't a lot of fun, right? Know which nation's mess we were cleaning up? That's right, the French.

The Cold War: Which nation kept the Commies from swallowing Europe, including the French? That's right; once again it was America.

Bosnia: How pathetic is it that Europe sat around twiddling its thumbs because they were scared to take on Serbia (Serbia!) in their own backyard without our carrying 75% of the load? Once again, it was France, among others, begging America to come take care of their problem.

Then, 9/11 happens and what help do we get from the French? A few special forces troops in Afghanistan and a newspaper headline -- whoop-de-doo.

Here's a thought: we didn't "squander" that good will. To the contary, the real problem is that the French in particular, and most (but, not all) of Western Europe in general, are selfish ingrates. The truth is that they want -- no -- they demand America's help when they're in trouble, but then when the shoe is on the other foot, they're just not willing to give back even a tiny portion of the sort of help that they've gotten from us over the years.

Last week, Musharraf's people cut a deal with the leaders of the tribal areas in Pakistan and the general consensus seemed to be that it was a capitulation to the terrorists. Of course, there were also people who took the alternate view, that this deal was "closing the trap on the Taliban," and would lead to foreign fighters being expelled from the tribal areas.

Well, the verdict isn't in yet, but the closing the trap people may just be right because we have scooped up one heck of a high value target:

"Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, the primary Islamic terrorist leader in Afghanistan before the Taliban and al Qaeda showed up, was captured just across the border from his Pakistani hideout. Someone gave him up, as Afghan and U.S. forces surrounded the rural compound where he was staying, and captured Hekmatyar and half a dozen followers without firing a shot. Operating from his base in Pakistan, Hekmatyar's terrorists were responsible for much of the violence in eastern Afghanistan. Hekmatyar never got along well with the Taliban, and has been in exile in Pakistan for over a decade."

After Bin Laden and Mullah Omar, Hekmatyar is probably the third biggest fish in the area and catching him in our net is a big deal. Is his capture a coincidence? Is it evidence that there's a lot more than meets the eye to this pact between Pakistan and the tribes? It's hard to say at this early date, but this is certainly an encouraging sign.

You can see the results for Right Wing News here.

You can see the results for the right side of the blogosphere as a whole, here.

"Most people never realize one simple fact never mentioned by the major media. Most of our news, from all sources, is presented to us through liberal Democrats. The Roper Center surveyed 139 bureau chiefs and correspondents and found only 4 percent to be Republicans. In 1992 a colossal 89 percent of these Washington bureau chiefs voted for Bill Clinton. George Bush drew 7 percent. Nationally Bill Clinton got 43 percent." -- Rupert Russell, Coshocton Times -- also see the Media Research Center

Gulbuddin Hekmatyar Reported Captured (This Is Big!)

Blasts Heard At Foreign Embassies In Syria

Hamas Agrees To Share Power With Fatah

The Text Of Bush's Speech Last Night

"Outburst" From Crowd When Democrat Jim Moran Gets Political At 9/11 Remembrance

Mayor Vetoes Chicago 'Living Wage' Bill That Targets Wal-Mart Among Others (Applause)

More Muslims Arrive In U.S., After 9/11 Dip (Free New York Times Reg Req)

U.S. Immigrant Marches Fail To Attract Large Crowds

New Jersey: Party Insiders Wonder If Menendez Can Survive

Hacking Of Governor's Computer Suspected. Published Comments Had Been Taped, Stored On Office Server

Funny Anti-Heath Shuler Ad

Newt Gingrich: We Need To Bring About Regime Change In Iran - But Preferably Not By Force

Redstate Does A Podcast Interview With Newt Gingrich

Victor Davis Hanson: Is the Western Way of War Dead?

James Joyner: The Left Remembers 9/11

Brendan Conway: The Myth of the "Fightin' Dems"

The Wall Street Journal: Jack Bauer Insurance

Mary Katharine Ham: Beware The Truthers. Don't Ignore Them

Bush Assassination Film Set For U.S. Release

One In 5 Canadians Sees 9/11 As U.S. Plot: Poll

Website Of The Day: Crosstabs

In an effort to smear the Bush administration and demonize the troops, the left has gone on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on about Abu Ghraib. Just to name one famously famous overreaction, do you remember what Ted Kennedy said about Abu Ghraib?

"Shamefully, we now learn that Saddam's torture chambers reopened under new management: U.S. management."

That was a reprehensible statement that you'd expect to hear from someone at the Daily Kos rather than in the US Senate, but what can you expect from one of the leaders of a party of "Blame America First" weaklings who are willing to do anything they can to undermine our efforts in Iraq for political gain?

Anyway, a fascinating thing happened at Abu Ghraib about a week ago: the American troops turned Abu Ghraib back over to the Iraqis and went elsewhere, which must have been a blessing for the poor prisoners, right? After all, according to Ted Kennedy and the Democrats, the "eeeeevvvviiiillll" Bush Administration had our "eeeeevvvviiiillll" soldiers running the place just like Saddam.

So, how are the Iraqi prisoners liking things at the new, "Chateau de Abu Ghraib?" Not so well, I'm afraid:

"The notorious Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad is at the centre of fresh abuse allegations just a week after it was handed over to Iraqi authorities, with claims that inmates are being tortured by their new captors.

...Conditions in the rest of the jail were grim, with an overwhelming stench of excrement, prisoners crammed into cells for all but 20 minutes a day, food rations cut to just rice and water and no air conditioning.

Some of the small number of prisoners who remained in the jail after the Americans left said they had pleaded to go with their departing captors, rather than be left in the hands of Iraqi guards.

"The Americans were better than the Iraqis. They treated us better," said Khalid Alaani, who was held on suspicion of involvement in Sunni terrorism.

...The witness said that even in the thieves' section prisoners were being treated badly. "Someone was shouting 'Please help us, we want the human rights officers, we want the Americans to come back'," he said.

...Haleem Aleulami, who was released from the jail last week, three weeks after being arrested in Ramadi for carrying a pistol in his car, said the Americans had treated him better when they ran the jail.

...And Khalid Alaani, who was also picked up in Ramadi suspected of involvement in Sunni terrorism, said: "We preferred the Americans. We asked to move with them to Baghdad airport because we knew the treatment would be changed because we know what the Iraqis are. When the Americans left everything changed."

...One officer, Capt Ali Abdelzaher, said: "We have a problem with the financing for the food, not like the Americans, and there is a technical problem with the air conditioning."

All these people want the Americans back? Really? Well, too bad, fellas. Here's an unpleasant fact of life: if Americans forget to bring prisoners their Fruity Pebbles one morning, you'll have Excitable Andy Sullivan and Dick Durbin claiming that it's torture. But, on the other hand, if Americans aren't involved, these prisoners could be getting beaten with nail-studded clubs 3 times a day and nobody is really going to care.

Still, it's notable that for all these accusations of "torture," the Americans have been gone a week and everyone wants them back. So does it sound like we're systematically "torturing" prisoners to you or did we have liberals hyping up a few isolated incidents in an effort to undercut the war and the Bush Administration? Obviously, it's the latter.

We're looking to pull in 100 donations for each of our 21 candidates over at Rightroots. Towards that end, I'm going to be doing profiles of our candidates each day in order to give you a better idea of whom you'd be giving money to. Today, the candidates profiled will be John Gard and Tom Kean.

Candidate #1: John Gard

District: (WI-8)
Seat Currently Held By: Mark Green (R)
Candidate + cash on hand: John Gard ($657,425)
Opponent + cash on hand: Steve Kagen ($317,868) Nancy Nusbaum ($102,111) & Jamie Wall ($574,444)
Kerry vs. Bush in 2004: 44%% vs. 55%
Latest polling: None Found
Webpage: here

Other: -- The primary is tomorrow.
-- The Democrats are targeting this district as one of their 15 pick-ups even though it doesn't look all that inviting at first glance.
-- You can see John Gard's bio here.

Candidate #2: Tom Kean

State New Jersey:
Seat Currently Held By: Robert Menendez (D)
Candidate + cash on hand: Tom Kean ($1,839,187)
Opponent + cash on hand: Robert Menendez ($6,339,406)
Kerry vs. Bush in 2004: 53% vs. 46%
Latest polling: Fairleigh Dickinson University: Kean 43% vs. Menendez 39%
Webpage: here

Other: -- Kean's father used to a well liked governor in the state and was also a member of the 9/11 Commission..
-- Menendez is now under criminal investigation and that will certainly be a big drag on his campaign.

You can contribute to either of these candidates and help us meet out goal for the 15 day challenge by chipping in a few bucks here, at Rightroots.

The Islamo-Fascist doctrine of the terrorists that attacked us on 9/11 is not new. To the contrary, it is actually very old. It goes right back to the murderous and rapacious early days of Islam.

Victor Davis Hanson discusses this mentality in relation to the battle of Poitiers, in his book Why the West Has Won :

"The prophet Muhammad died exactly one hundred years before the battle of Poitiers. In that century, between 632 and 732, a small and rather impotent Arab people arose to conquer the Sassanid Persian Empire, wrest the entire Middle-East and much of Asia Minor from the Byzantines, and establish a theocratic rule across North Africa.

...The weakness of other empires, the borrowing of arms and organization from the Byzantines, and the natural role of an Asiatic kingdom in Asia proper still do not entirely explain the miraculous Islamic conquests. Arab armies also won because of the peculiar nature of their newfound religion, which offered the nomad singular incentives to fight. There was to be a novel connection between war and faith, creating a divine culture that might reward with paradise the slaying of the infidel and the looting of Christian cities. Killing and pillaging were now in the proper context, acts of piety.

Second, the onslaught of the Muslims into the Persian, Byzantine, and European realms was considered a natural -- or fated -- act. The world was no longer bound by national borders or ethnic spheres, but was properly the sole domain of Muhammad -- if only his followers were courageous enough to fulfill the Prophet's visions. Islam was not a static or reflective religion, but a dynamic creed that saw conquest and conversion as prerequisites for world harmony.

...The Pacifist traditions of Christianity in the short term stood in stark contrast to Islam, which in theory professed that Muslims should not fight fellow believers, but kill all others until, "there is no God but Allah." -- P. 146-148

Of course, all Muslims -- in fact, the majority of Muslims no longer subscribe to this doctrine. Moreover, Christianity had its ugly phases, too -- although there are no Christians calling for a new Inquisition or to conquer the Middle-East in a series of new crusades.

But, when you're talking about Islamo-Fascists of the sort that run Iran and are in Al-Qaeda, Hamas, and Hezbollah, you're talking about Muslims who quite literally have a 7th century mindset. They see killing infidels just for being infidels as a virtuous act that helps ensure their place in heaven. That's why, in the long term, real negotiation and compromise with these terrorists and rogue state benefactors simply is not possible.

Sept 11th Related Quotes, The First 10 Days

The Best Quotes From The Left Since 9/11 (2003)

Transcript of GWB's Sept 20th, 2001 Speech

Text of US Propaganda Broadcasts in Afghanistan

I Didn't Forget The 9/11 Celebrations

Memorials Won't Prevent Another 9/11

Comments From 9/11 -- As They Happened

The DU Post Of The Day: To The Citizens Of Dirtsville USA: Quit Grieving For NYC

An Ode To America

This may be the the first time that I've run a press release as actual content, but this latest piece of research that the RNC sent out is just too devastatingly good to ignore. It's called,

"Democrats Then And Now On Iraq War Intel. Before Iraq War Democrats Agreed Saddam Hussein Had Weapons Of Mass Destruction; Now Democrats Criticize Intelligence For Political Gain."

Enjoy!

SENATE MINORITY LEADER HARRY REID (D-NV) THEN AND NOW ON IRAQ

Sen. Reid's Prewar Statements:

Sen. Reid: "Saddam Hussein, in effect, has thumbed his nose at the world community. And I think that the President's approaching this in the right fashion." (CNN's "Inside Politics," 9/18/02)

Sen. Reid In 2005:

Sen. Reid: "[T]he Bush Administration manipulated and cherry-picked intelligence to hype the threat." (Sen. Harry Reid, "Sen. Reid: Democrats Offer A Way Forward In Iraq," Press Release, 11/15/05)

HOUSE MINORITY LEADER NANCY PELOSI (D-CA) THEN AND NOW ON IRAQ

Rep. Pelosi's Prewar Statements:

Rep. Pelosi: "[S]addam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons. There's no question about that." (NBC's "Meet The Press," 11/17/02)

Rep. Pelosi In 2005:

Fox News' Neil Cavuto: "[B]ack on November 17, 2002, you did say: 'Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons. There's no question about that.'" Pelosi: "That's right. And what I said was, but that is not an imminent threat to the United States or a cause for war ..." (Fox News' "Your World," 11/16/05)

SEN. HILLARY CLINTON (D-NY) THEN & NOW ON IRAQ

Sen. Clinton's Prewar Statements:

Sen. Clinton: "I can support the President, I can support an action against Saddam Hussein because I think it's in the long-term interests of our national security ..." (NBC's "Meet The Press," 9/15/02)

Sen. Clinton In 2005:

Sen. Clinton: "[T]his Administration was either not being honest with the American people or did not know what was going on in Iraq." (Sen. Hillary Clinton, Letter, 11/29/05)

SEN. JOHN KERRY (D-MA) THEN & NOW ON IRAQ

Sen. Kerry's Prewar Statements:

Sen. Kerry: "[I] think we clearly have to keep the pressure on terrorism globally. This doesn't end with Afghanistan by any imagination. And I think the president has made that clear. I think we have made that clear. Terrorism is a global menace. It's a scourge. And it is absolutely vital that we continue, for instance, Saddam Hussein." (CNN's "Larry King Live," 12/14/01)

Sen. Kerry In 2005:

Sen. Kerry: "This was a war of choice. It was a choice and it was a bad choice." (MSNBC's "Imus In The Morning," 12/9/05)

DNC CHAIRMAN HOWARD DEAN THEN & NOW ON IRAQ

Chairman Dean's Prewar Statements:

DNC Chairman Howard Dean: "There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and to our allies. ... [I]f Saddam persists in thumbing his nose at the inspectors, then we're clearly going to have to do something about it." (CBS' "Face The Nation," 9/29/02)

Chairman Dean In 2005:

Chairman Dean: "Saddam Hussein was never a threat to the United States." (MSNBC's "Hardball," 6/29/05)

SEN. BARBARA BOXER (D-CA) THEN AND NOW ON IRAQ

Sen. Boxer's Prewar Statements:

Sen. Boxer: "The weapons they [Iraq] have are a threat to the world. And Mr. President, the world must respond." (Sen. Barbara Boxer, Congressional Record, 10/10/02, p. S10253)

Sen. Boxer In 2005:

Sen. Boxer: "Iraq was a war of choice, not a war of necessity." (Sen. Barbara Boxer, Remarks At The Commonwealth Club, San Francisco, CA, 7/6/05)

SEN. JOSEPH BIDEN (D-DE) THEN & NOW ON IRAQ

Sen. Biden's Prewar Statements:

Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE): "It would be unrealistic, if not downright foolish, to believe we can claim victory in the war on terrorism and a more secure world if Saddam Hussein is still in power five years from now, at least acting as he has the last five years." (Sen. Joe Biden, Remarks At Center For Strategic And International Studies Forum, Washington, D.C., 2/4/02)

Sen. Biden In 2005:

Sen. Biden: "[The Administration was] wrong about every single thing about Iraq." (MSNBC's "Imus In The Morning," 12/5/05)

SEN. TED KENNEDY (D-MA) THEN & NOW ON IRAQ

Sen. Kennedy's Prewar Statements:

Sen. Kennedy: "Saddam Hussein is a dangerous figure. He's got dangerous weapons." (CBS' "Face The Nation," 10/6/02)

Sen. Kennedy In 2005:

Sen. Kennedy: "The President wrongly and repeatedly insisted that it was too dangerous to ignore the weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein and his ties to Al Quida." (Sen. Ted Kennedy, Floor Statement, 11/10/05)

REP. HAROLD FORD (D-TN) THEN & NOW ON IRAQ

Rep. Ford's Prewar Statements:

Rep. Ford: "For anyone to suggest or pretend that Saddam Hussein is not a threat or a menace, I think he or she is fooling himself or herself, and is misleading the nation." (MSNBC's "Buchanan & Press," 10/8/02)

Rep. Ford In 2004:

Rep. Ford: "The President came before the Congress and laid out explicitly a case for going to war with Iraq because of progressions of weapons of mass destruction. Turned out he didn't know what he was talking about." (CNBC's "Capital Report," 7/27/04)

SEN. JAY ROCKEFELLER (D-WV) THEN & NOW ON IRAQ

Sen. Rockefeller's Prewar Statements:

Sen. Rockefeller: "[W]e can no longer afford to wait around for a smoking gun." (Sen. Jay Rockefeller, Congressional Record, 10/10/02, p. S10306)

Sen. Rockefeller In 2005:

Sen. Rockefeller: "I thought [President Bush] distinctly misled the American people into doing something which the American People now, I think, about 2:1 are against doing." (NBC's "NBC Nightly News," 11/13/05)

SEN. RUSS FEINGOLD (D-WI) THEN & NOW ON IRAQ

Sen. Feingold's Prewar Statements:

Sen. Feingold: "Saddam Hussein's refusal to allow access to inspection sites had to be answered." ("Political Reaction," Wisconsin State Journal, 12/17/98)

Sen. Feingold In 2004:

"Feingold Said He Is 'Very Troubled' That Bush Continued To Justify The War On The Basis Of Iraq's ... Possession Of Weapons Of Mass Destruction." (David Callender, "Feingold: Bush Has 'Bunker Mentality,'" Capital Times [Madison, WI], 4/15/04)

SEN. MARIA CANTWELL (D-WA) THEN & NOW ON IRAQ

Sen. Cantwell's Prewar Statements:

Sen. Cantwell: "Some citizens say there are other countries in the world producing weapons of mass destruction and could be the source of aid to terrorists. Why worry about Iraq? I know of no other country that has proposed such a unique threat. One that has violated US/UN cease-fire agreements to stop developing weapons of mass destruction; one that has used weapons of mass destruction in war or against its own people; and one that has refused to help the U.S. in the Afghanistan war on terrorism and actually applauded the efforts of Al Quida of 9/11." (Sen. Maria Cantwell, Congressional Record, 10/10/02, p. S10318)

Sen. Cantwell In 2005:

Sen. Cantwell: "[T]o me, we had had a cease-fire agreement with Iraq." (CNN's "The Situation Room," 12/16/05)

Where's the honesty and the honor from these people? Where's the admission that they looked at the same intelligence info the President saw and concluded that Saddam was a threat with WMDs?

If they want to come back now and say, "Gee, I'm fickle and I didn't realize that wars are hard, so I've changed my mind on Iraq and wish I'd voted the other way," that's an honest position. Another honest position would be to say something like, "I thought Saddam was a threat to our country, but I wanted to leave that threat in place and risk the consequences."

But, this whole "Bush lied and mislead us" position is complete bunk and they're the worst sort of weasels for going down that road.

Last week, over at Human Events, I wrote a column called, "Moderate Muslims: Speak Up or Get Lumped In with Islamo-Fascists."

If you want to read a great example of the sort of speaking up that I was hoping more Muslims would do, take a look at what the director of the Islamic Society of Nevada, Aslam Abdullah, had to say in the Las Vegas Review-Journal.

Here's a little sample:

"The leader of al-Qaida in Iraq, Abu Hamza al-Muhajer, recently issued a decree to its supporters: Kill at least one American in the next two weeks "using a sniper rifle, explosive or whatever the battle may require."

Well, Abu Hamza al-Muhajer, I am an American too. Count me as the one of those you have asked your supporters to kill.

...You say that the word of God is the highest. Yes, it is. But you are not worthy of it. You have abandoned God and you have started worshipping your own satanic egos that rejoice at the killing of innocent people. You don't represent Muslims or, for that matter, any decent human being who believes in the sanctity of life. Many among us American Muslims have differences with our administration on domestic and foreign issues, just like many other Americans do. But the plurality of opinions does not mean that we deprive ourselves of the civility that God demands from us. America is our home and will always be our home. Its interests are ours, and its people are ours. When you talk of killing of Americans, you first have to kill 6 million or so Muslims who will stand for every American's right to live and enjoy the life as commanded by God."

Hear, hear!

The hostility level towards Muslims in the US has regrettably risen since 9/11 and that's because a lot of non-Muslims have been unsure of the answer to a very simple question: "Are most Muslims in this country really sympathetic to us or to their co-religionists?"

Every time a Muslim like Aslam Abdullah answers the question in a public way, so definitively, it reassures people of where Muslims in the US really stand -- and that's a good thing.

"If Democrats win one or both houses of Congress in November's elections, as polls suggest is increasingly likely, President Bush's Washington will change dramatically.

Democrats will press to get out of Iraq. They'll mount investigations into the Bush administration's record that could rival those of Presidents Nixon in Watergate and Clinton in the Monica Lewinsky affair.

They'll push a boatload of social-welfare legislation, such as raising the minimum wage, that reflects their pent-up priorities, while blocking the Republican agenda on social issues such as gay marriage, abortion and religion.

Those are some of the top plans that Democrats would pursue if they won power, according to interviews with Democratic lawmakers, strategists, staff aides and lobbyists." -- Margaret Talev, McClatchy Washington Bureau

ABC Airs 9/11 Series Despite Criticism

The "Path To 9/11" Clips That Drove The Dems Nuts

Dick Cheney: "I Don't Know How You Can Explain Five Years Of No Attacks, Five Years Of Successful Disruption Of Attacks, Five Years Of, Of Defeating The Efforts Of Al-Qaeda To Come Back And Kill More Americans. You've Got To Give Some Credence To The Notion That Maybe Somebody Did Something Right." (Free WAPO Reg Req)

Bushes Lay Wreaths At Trade Center Site

On Tape, Clinton Admits Passing Up Bin Laden Capture; Lewinsky Played Role

Nation's Crime Rate Hits 32-Year Low

Sen. John Rockefeller Wishes Saddam Were Still In Power

Bin Laden Trail 'Stone Cold' (Free WAPO Reg Req)

Militant Site Shows More Al-Qaida Videos

PA Senate Race Poll From Zogby/WSJ: Casey Jr. 47% Vs. Santorum: 43%

Mason-Dixon Poll On Va Senate Race: Allen 46% vs. Webb 42%

GOP Supports Its Most Liberal Member To Hold Senate (Free New York Times Reg Req)

Jeff Jacoby: A New Low In Bush-Hatred

Mark Steyn: 9/11 Enemies Are Still Hiding In Plain Sight

John Negroponte: Yes, We Are Better Prepared (Free New York Times Reg Req)

Jonah Goldberg: Analogy Vs. Analogy

Aslam Abdullah: Radical Muslims Not Worthy Of The Religion

Blogger Isaac Schrodinger Is Currently Involved In The Fight Of His Life. Better Said: A Fight For His Life

Rove Denies 'Demon' Rumors

Woman Hits 2nd Million Dollar Jackpot In 4 Years

Sudan Man Forced To 'Marry' Goat

Website Of The Day: Pollster.com