Yeah, well, whatever.  A few observations left.

Things overheard being said today by...

Democrats
It's a new day!
We were right all along!
The rest of the world loves us again!
No more Chimpy McBushHitler... well, in a few months anyway.
Finally, I don't have to pay my mortgage or buy gas.

Republicans
Well, there's still some concern about that untraced fund-raising.
Congratulations, it was well-fought but you won.
Yeah, well, we weren't all that pleased with McCain either.
Done.  Fine.  Good luck with all that.


Things NOT overheard being said today by...

Democrats
Huh, guess we were wrong about all that election-stealing stuff.  Sorry.
This is a time to be bipartisan.
All those evil corporations gave McCain so much more money that he... wait...
The country is still divided and it's time to come together.

Republicans
Let's run Palin in 2012.
Obama's not my President!  He's like Hitler!
They stole the election, let's sue!  Wahhhhh!

Anyone
I miss the election cycle already.  Let's get started on 2012!

So, I was going to do a play-by-play restating of the debate but I really don't have time today.  Got people out at work and tonight's a date night, but maybe some other time.  So here's the short version:

Moderator: Please answer [question].
Biden: Certainly.  [answer].
Palin: Instead let me talk about [some canned, unrelated statement]
Moderator: Senator, your reply?
Biden: Well, that's not true because of [reasonable rebuttal]
Palin: ...

And repeat.

Sorry, I was hoping for better, but it was objectively pretty bad.  Not enough to change my vote but I can't imagine it's going to win a lot of thoughtful, independent voters to the GOP.  I don't believe anyone can "win" a debate like this - the media's insistence on granting one that status aside - since it's never a real debate but just talking points back and forth.  Still, if someone could win the debate, it would be Biden.  Which sucks, but what can you do?

Part of the problem too is that each of these four candidates represents a different point on the likable/knowledgeable spectrum.  To illustrate:

	Platitudes	Real Policy
Likable
Unlikable

An explanation of the current real estate crisis in easy-to-follow cartoon format:

http://www.manausa.com/blog/30/financial-markets-mess/

Well, the last letter actually seemed to work out all right, so here are few more.  Political-style...

To Congress:
Stop mentioning how long you've been working every time you're on camera.  No one in the real world is impressed.  Really.  Many of us do it all the time.  There's an economic crisis and you worked until 1 AM last night?  Wow, that's quite a sacrifice.  I'm very impressed that you've given up 2-3 hours of sleep to prevent the free world from imploding into economic chaos and destruction.

To Senator McCain:
You messed up.  The whole "canceling the debate" gambit failed.  As much as I appreciate the idea of a Senator doing his current job first, don't worry about it.  There are 98 other Senators that are perfectly qualif... well... equally qualified to deal with the crisis.  You're just getting in the way and causing political friction.

To Senator Obama:
Come on... you've been campaigning for President since 3 weeks after you were elected.  It's clear you had no intention to do your actual Senator job so just go campaign.  Stop with the photo shoots and flights out to D.C. and just get back at it.  You're messing up the whole process too.

To every news commentator:
STOP saying "main street" in comparison with "Wall Street".  Seriously, it's just maddening.  You managed to get past saying "gravitas" all the time, and you've even started cutting back on "heartbeat away from the Presidency" when talking about Governor Palin, just stop saying "main street".  It doesn't make you look in touch with the "common folk" especially with everyone else saying it too.

So there.

Wow.  I have to say, a couple weeks ago I was pretty sure that Obama would win the election.  Now, after Governor Palin's speech at the Convention, I wouldn't be a bit surprised if he wins and she succeeds him as the first female President.

Got a call from some 800-number yesterday that left a message on our machine.  It's a remarkably offensive abuse of voter trust and I hope whichever candidate, special interest group, or the DNC themselves is held accountable for it.  The Gainesville Times ran an article about it yesterday evening:

Registered voters in at least three Northeast Georgia counties, including Hall, received automated phone calls falsely informing them that they had to vote in Tuesday's primary runoff election in order to vote in November, officials said.

Jackson and Banks county voting officials said they were flooded with calls from concerned voters who received the message. A Hall County board of elections official said the office got one call about the message.

Banks County Probate Judge Betty Thomas said the unidentified voice announces that they have received information from the registrar that they haven’t voted and that if they don’t vote Tuesday, then they would be ineligible to vote in the November general election.

And of course, that's wrong, she said.

Thomas said the Georgia Secretary of State's office was notified and was looking into the source of the calls, which came from an 800 number.

Thomas said there would be no way that information on whether a person voted in Tuesday’s primary runoff election would be available immediately, and that a person did not need to vote in the runoff to vote in the November presidential election.

"I don't know if what they are doing is illegal, but they're giving the wrong information," Thomas said. "It bothers me because of the mistrust it instills in the system. It makes people think someone knows who voted, and then makes them think they know how they voted."

The recording does not name any candidates or specific election, Thomas said.

The only race that the Banks, Jackson and Hall county ballots have in common is the Democratic primary runoff for U.S. senator between Vernon Jones and Jim Martin.

I've lifted the audio from my machine so that you can hear it here.

That great theologian and political strategist, Charles Barkley, on how conservatives aren't true Christians, and his bid for Governor in 2014.

Personally, I'm not going to be convinced until I hear Howie Long's opinion on the election.

I'm sad to say I came to say you must be going.  I'm glad you came, but just the same, you must be going.  It's been a fun run, but I'm afraid Huckabee has little chance of winning.  And unless he has a really great showing today (which he has won West Virginia so far) it's probably time to drop out and throw his support behind Romney.  Because the alternative is he and Romney splitting the evangelical base and McCain getting the nomination.  And McCain, despite a recent barrage of media to the contrary, has a very spotty record when it comes to conservative values.

On the other hand, McCain might be more electable in the general than Romney since he's more centrist.  On the gripping hand, Rush Limbaugh and others have joined Ann Coulter in saying that they would vote for a Democrat over McCain - meaning he'd lose as much from the base as he'd gain from the Dems.  So I don't know, but either way it's bad news for conservatives.

Ah well, always 2012.

Oh, yes, I voted for Huckabee.  So call me an optimist.

Ann Coulter on Hannity and Colmes said that she would vote, even campaign, for Hillary over McCain if it comes to that.  I don't know if I would go quite that far (especially with news that Nancy Reagan is privately endorsing McCain) but if it came down to Obama and McCain?  Yeah, I don't know...

The idea is to stream the events of the Convention over the internet and allow more interactivity and such. I asked whether it was possible to save the streaming video and embed it for later play, and they said it would be possible. I haven't found a way to do it with the video of the press conference itself, however, so hopefully they didn't just misunderstand. After all, embedding streaming video is really only of limited use. The whole power behind YouTube and TiVo is that you don't have to be there when it happens.

You can see the page here but, of course, being streaming, there's nothing to see now.

Update: Just as they said, there is a place for "past clips" where you can see and embed previously aired video.  Very nice.  Look for a familiar mention around 13:30.

Michelle Malkin has noticed something eerily similar about the nominees for the Spoken Word Grammy...

Best Spoken Word Album (Includes Poetry, Audio Books & Story Telling)

• The Audacity Of Hope: Thoughts On Reclaiming The American Dream - Barack Obama
• Celebrations - Maya Angelou
• Giving: How Each Of Us Can Change The World - Bill Clinton
• Sunday Mornings In Plains: Bringing Peace To A Changing World - Jimmy Carter
• Things I Overheard While Talking To Myself - Alan Alda

Huh.  Anyone else notice a pattern?

Says White House Press Corps institution Helen Thomas:

Q: Do you think technology is changing [journalism]? That a good reporter will always find a venue because there are so many media outlets now?

Thomas: No, but I do think it is kind of sad when everybody who owns a laptop thinks they're a journalist and doesn't understand the ethics. We do have to have some sense of what's right and wrong in this job. Of how far we can go. We don't make accusations without absolute proof. We're not prosecutors. We don't assume.

Typical elitism.  Course we can't all have the professionalism and absolute proof requirements of Dan Rather.  Or the sense of right and wrong of the CNN debate organizers.  But let's just go to Ms. Thomas herself...

I'm covering the worst president in American history.

The day Dick Cheney is going to run for president, I'll kill myself. All we need is another liar... I think he'd like to run, but it would be a sad day for the country if he does.

She certainly has the professionalism down.

The approval rating for the war is at 41%.

Congress's approval rating is, heh, 20%...

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer [cough] has an editorial by a guest columnist from the UK.  And she has found out or secret plot, I'm afraid.  She rightly starts out with:

In the long, hot autumn of 2000, the world was shocked by the contempt for democracy shown by the Republican Party. They knew their man had lost the popular vote to Al Gore by half a million votes. They knew the majority of voters in Florida itself had pulled a lever for Gore. But they fought -- amid the confetti of hanging chads -- to stop the state's votes being counted, and to ensure that the Supreme Court imposed George W. Bush on the nation.

Yes, the world is easily shocked.  I'm sure even Castro was felled by such dastardly election fraud.  I guess asking for a recount and not protesting when the Supreme Court threw out Gore's lawsuit counts as contempt for democracy.

But we have another trick just waiting for 2008.  It's... wait for it... the Electoral College! (bum bum bum!)

Don't laugh - to Democrats, following the Constitution is a dirty trick.

It is the worst part of the Constitution, producing perverse results again and again. On four occasions there has been such a big gap between the national popular vote and the state-by-state Electoral College votes that the guy with fewer real supporters in the country got to be president. It happened in 1824, 1876, 1888 and -- most tragically for the world -- in 2000.

Wow.  Four times.  That's really something.  Look, I don't really care about the Electoral College.  It seems to work but if we wanted to switch to the popular vote instead that's fine too.  A little more prone to fraud and abuse, I think, rather than the smoothing effect of the EC, but whatever.  But let's have no nonsense about how it's somehow only favoring one party or the other.

Just to show I did READ the article, she's complaining about a referendum in California that would split their EC votes much like Maine does.  The idea being that this will give the GOP some of California's EC votes rather than the 0 it usually gets.  And that doing that without also splitting Florida and Texas would be unfair.

But I think our UK friend might not understand the obstinate sovereignty that our states like to exercise.  The idea that the Texas legislature would be in the least influenced by what California does is absurd.  And it is, ultimately, a state decision, not a federal one.  And if you don't like it, you know, change it.  But there's no point complaining about the rules when you lose if you knew them going in.

Ok, I never thought I would see the day where Whoopi Goldberg would be the voice of reason either.  But that day has come.

You may have read about the British teacher jailed in the Sudan.  If not, she was teaching there and had some teddy bears that the kids could name.  Well, one of them wanted to give the bear a name that many people share in that region.  Unfortunately, the name was Muhammad and while it's ok to name a person that, not so much a stuffed bear.  So this tolerant theocracy does what everyone would expect and throws her in jail over an innocent mistake.  Then there were protests, predictions of long sentences and lashes and protests calling for her execution.  She's safe now, by the way.

Yeah, so no surprises there.  Then everyone's favorite bastion of sensible thought, The View, decides to discuss the story.  Barbara Walters has the usual liberal response to terrorism, i.e. "Yes, it's a terrible, terrible thing.  But..."  Her point is that while it's terrible what's happened, the same attitude is present in this country.  And that there are places here where if you named a stuffed bear Jesus that people would be outraged.  She doesn't say people would be calling for executions (at least as far as I could stomach getting through the clip) but she does draw a moral equivalence there which is just absurd.  And, seriously, if Whoopi is saying she doesn't believe it then I think you're way off the deep end...



IMAO's Harvey has really the best response I've seen to the mess right here.

Here's a great article on what it means to be a Christian living in America.  It echoes a lot of the same feelings I've had.  Due to my work with the church youth and trying to stay involved in politics, I am told all the time that we need to get fired up and take back this country.  Or that it used to be a Christian nation and now it's slipping and we need to stop it before it's too late.  But I could never really buy into that.  I thought it was just apathy but in reality it's a sense of hopelessness.  After all, as much as I care about this country, it is not my home.  And there is a coming darkness that will require the complicity of the U.S. simply because we are too powerful for it to succeed otherwise.  So the country is doomed eventually in any event.

Not that we shouldn't, of course, try to delay it as much as possible.  But ultimately we will not win and the country will perish because it is of this world.  So we should pray, and mourn, and, eventually, we should let go.

John Piper puts it better than I do (quoted in entirety and emphasis added):

The fact that Christians are exiles on the earth (1 Peter 2:11), does not mean that they don’t care what becomes of culture. But it does mean that they exert their influence as very happy, brokenhearted outsiders. We are exiles. “Our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ” (Philippians 3:20). “Here we have no lasting city, but we seek the city that is to come” (Hebrews 13:14).

But we are very happy sojourners, because we have been commanded by our bloody Champion to rejoice in exile miseries. “Blessed are you when others . . . persecute you . . . on my account. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven” (Matthew 5:11-12). We are happy because the apostle Paul showed us that “the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us” (Romans 8:18). We are happy because there are merciful foretastes everywhere in this fallen world, and God is glad for us to enjoy them (1 Timothy 4:3; 6:17). And we are happy because we know that the exiles will one day inherit the earth (Matthew 5:5). Christ died for sinners so that “all things” might one day belong to his people (Romans 8:32).

But our joy is a brokenhearted joy, because Christ is worthy of so much better obedience than we Christians render. Our joy is a brokenhearted joy because so many people around the world have not heard the good news that “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners” (1 Timothy 1:15). And our joy is a brokenhearted joy because human culture –- in every society –- dishonors Christ, glories in its shame, and is bent on self-destruction.

This includes America. American culture does not belong to Christians, neither in reality nor in Biblical theology. It never has. The present tailspin toward Sodom is not a fall from Christian ownership. “The whole world lies in the power of the evil one” (1 John 5:19). It has since the fall, and it will till Christ comes in open triumph. God’s rightful ownership will be manifest in due time. The Lordship of Christ over all creation is being manifest in stages, first the age of groaning, then the age of glory. “We ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies” (Romans 8:23). The exiles are groaning with the whole creation. We are waiting.

But Christian exiles are not passive. We do not smirk at the misery or the merrymaking of immoral culture. We weep. Or we should. This is my main point: being exiles does not mean being cynical. It does not mean being indifferent or uninvolved. The salt of the earth does not mock rotting meat. Where it can, it saves and seasons. And where it can’t, it weeps. And the light of the world does not withdraw, saying “good riddance” to godless darkness. It labors to illuminate. But not dominate.

Being Christian exiles in American culture does not end our influence; it takes the swagger out of it. We don’t get cranky that our country has been taken away. We don’t whine about the triumphs of evil. We are not hardened with anger. We understand. This is not new. This was the way it was in the beginning –- Antioch, Corinth, Athens, Rome. The Empire was not just degenerate, it was deadly. For three explosive centuries Christians paid for their Christ-exalting joy with blood. Many still do. More will.

It never occurred to those early exiles that they should rant about the ubiquity of secular humanism. The Imperial words were still ringing in their ears: “You will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved” (Mark 13:13). This was a time for indomitable joy and unwavering ministries of mercy.

Yes, it was a time for influence–-as it is now. But not with huffing and puffing as if to reclaim our lost laws. Rather with tears and persuasion and perseverance, knowing that the folly of racism, and the exploitation of the poor, and the de-Godding of education, and the horror of abortion, and the collapse of heterosexual marriage, are the tragic death-tremors of joy, not the victory of the left or the right.

The greatness of Christian exiles is not success but service. Whether we win or lose, we witness to the way of truth and beauty and joy. We don’t own culture, and we don’t rule it. We serve it with brokenhearted joy and longsuffering mercy, for the good of man and the glory of Jesus Christ.

By John Piper. © Desiring God. Website: desiringGod.org

So what came out of the ridiculous Republican debate last week?  Well, besides the startling (to those not paying attention) revelation that CNN again planted the debates with Democrat activists (up to 1/3 identified so far including a member of Hillary's GLBT steering committee) it seems that our friend Huckmentum is on the rise.  Says Patrick Ruffini:

[#1 winner, Huckabee] won this and it wasn't close. In past debates he'd try to be all folksy in his national security answers, which really deflated his gravitas. But the issue terrain was a target rich environment for him, from his strong rebuttal to Mitt on not punishing children for the sins of their parents, to his eloquent and authoritative answer to the ill-conceived Bible question to the quip about Jesus not running for public office. Though clearly on his game, Huckabee seemed to benefit from everyone else being off theirs.

On the one hand I'm glad he's doing so well and stands a chance at winning Iowa.  That could catapult him to winning the nomination.  Trouble is, I'm not sure he's electable in the general.  So, we'll see.

John Stossel urges us not to learn the wrong lessons from Thanksgiving:

When the Pilgrims first settled the Plymouth Colony, they organized their farm economy along communal lines. The goal was to share everything equally, work and produce.

They nearly all starved.

Why? When people can get the same return with a small amount of effort as with a large amount, most people will make little effort. Plymouth settlers faked illness rather than working the common property. Some even stole, despite their Puritan convictions. Total production was too meager to support the population, and famine resulted. Some ate rats, dogs, horses and cats. This went on for two years.

[Later], the people of Plymouth moved from socialism to private farming. The results were dramatic.

"This had very good success," Bradford wrote, "for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been. ... By this time harvest was come, and instead of famine, now God gave them plenty, and the face of things was changed, to the rejoicing of the hearts of many. ... "

Because of the change, the first Thanksgiving could be held in November 1623.

What Plymouth suffered under communalism was what economists today call the tragedy of the commons. But the problem has been known since ancient Greece. As Aristotle noted, "That which is common to the greatest number has the least care bestowed upon it."

When action is divorced from consequences, no one is happy with the ultimate outcome. If individuals can take from a common pot regardless of how much they put in it, each person has an incentive to be a free rider, to do as little as possible and take as much as possible because what one fails to take will be taken by someone else. Soon, the pot is empty and will not be refilled -- a bad situation even for the earlier takers.

Reminds me of the old Onion article: Marxists' Apartment A Microcosm Of Why Marxism Doesn't Work

Much has been made recently about the debate between Clinton and Obama about who has more foreign policy and governing experience: a former first-lady on her second Senate term, or a first-term Senator who once lived overseas.  Of course, the closest either has to executive experience is sharing a house with a former President.  As always, Scrappleface puts it in perspective and shows the true depth of their experience:

"In the White House, First Lady Clinton worked side-by-side with Vice President Al Gore, who I defeated in 2000," said Mr. Bush, "In the Senate, she served alongside John Kerry and John Edwards, who I defeated in 2004. No one else in the race has such broad-ranging experience with what it means to be a Democrat presidential candidate in the 21st century."

The president noted that "the very fact that Sen. Clinton is now debating with rookie Sen. Barack Obama over who has more experience serving in an executive position, which neither senator has ever done, further demonstrates that among Democrats she's seasoned, prime beef. As my friends in the ranching business say, 'It's what's for dinner'."

Still working on my review of the debate last week.  Since then, though, all six of the "undecided voters" that CNN chose to ask questions have been identified and, to no one's surprise, they are all involved with the Democratic Party or are political activists.  Not that there's anything wrong with that -- it is a Democratic primary debate, of course.  But the fact is that they were not represented as "undecided Democratic activists" or even "undecided Democrats".  CNN wanted us to believe that these people were ordinary, random citizens just yanked from UNLV and the surrounding area.  Don't believe me?  Can't bear to give up the CNN Kool-Aid.  Fine:

First they accuse him of being a cross dresser and then they have Mo Rocca make fun of how he talks.  A brief excerpt:

MO ROCCA: When we select a president, we're not just electing an executive to do a job. We're electing a person to represent us, which is why in these marathon campaigns, we start to look at personality traits. It can be Hillary Clinton's laugh, George Bush's smirk back in 2000. Or now for me, it's Rudy Giuliani lisp. I'm a little biased here because I have a lisp, too, which is why I went to a speech therapist to sound it out.

Is America ready for a president with a lisp? Rudy Giuliani has a lisp. Full disclosure. I have a lisp. Disclosure.

MO ROCCA: If a lisp also connotes weakness, is that something that can be a detriment to someone who's trying to become the leader of the free world?

Says the WSJ:

It is unimaginable that a mainstream network would give this sort of treatment to, say, Barney Frank or John Edwards. We're not going to feign outrage again; the truth is that we find this all sort of amusing. But it is a reminder of just what a sham left-wing political correctness is. People who claim to oppose "homophobia" or other forms of prejudice often turn out merely to want a monopoly on it.

Indeed.

Mike Huckabee has a new ad out capitalizing on the Chuck Norris Facts internet meme that was popular a while back (but isn't really anymore).  So I'm not sure if it's kind of out-of-touch or brilliant.  But I'm leaning towards the latter.

From ScrappleFace, concerning Hillary's "asbestos pantsuit" that she brought to the debate last night:

China Recalls Hillary Clinton's Asbestos Pantsuit

(2007-11-16) — Chinese authorities today announced a sweeping recall of garments manufactured with asbestos, including the pantsuit worn by Sen. Hillary Clinton during last night’s Democrat presidential debate.

Sen. Clinton’s trousers were marketed mostly through retailers in the Washington D.C. region, and made from "a political-grade fabric that provides protection from spontaneous combustion, thus avoiding the embarrassment of 'pants on fire'."

Because asbestos is the leading cause of lung cancer in laboratory mice and rats, experts said it posed a particular danger to Sen. Clinton's rivals on the stage last night.

The Chinese government apologized to the former First Lady for shipping the flame-retardant slacks, and said she could either return them for a refund, or try asbestos abatement through dry cleaning.

A spokesman for the Clinton campaign said the candidate had no worries, "because Hillary has a lot of friends in Chinatown who are experts at laundering things, and would love to contribute to her campaign in any way they can."

Heh, "pants on fire", that's great.

Michelle Malkin is still covering the protests in Olympia, Washington.  Parents there are blocking military deliveries and supplies by placing themselves in the way of the trucks.

Oh, and their kids too.

From an eyewitness, and the one who took the picture to the right (and others in the story -- click the link above to see more heart-warming goodness):

I work at the port, and have observed some truly mind boggling events unfold, but the most astonishing was the use of children as human shields. The attached pictures were taken on 11/9/07; the night military equipment was first blocked from leaving the port. The Olympia Police Department essentially abandoned any effort to remove the protesters out of fear that a child would be harmed in their efforts to enforce the law. The mother of these children apparently had no such concern.

After the military convoy was forced to retreat, a victory celebration ensued, with chanting dancing, etc. I was horrified to watch as the woman in the attached photograph, distracted by events, allowed her infant to fall from her lap and land, face first on the pavement. The second photo shows her retrieving the crying baby as her other two children, dressed as terrorists look on.

This situation, and another two days later, when dozens of college aged girls were arrayed in rows with arms linked to block the road, showed a deliberate effort to use the same tactics as the terrorist savages who manipulate us, knowing that decent people cannot abide putting innocents in harm’s way. And, while the police were dragging the females away, under the glare of the media’s cameras, the males were establishing rolling blockades; throwing rocks at police and military vehicles; breaking windows, etc.

(emphasis mine) Original story.

Dan Rather is suing CBS.  You may remember that after presenting clearly false documents as real ones during a Presidential election, and then still holding to the veracity (if not validity) of the documents, Dan Rather was fired (or resigned, whichever they said publicly).

So what is the basis of his lawsuit?  He's claming he was the victim of a massive conspiracy stretching from CBS executives all the way to the White House.

Today, in New York Supreme Court, in response to Dan Rather's civil lawsuit, CBS filed a lengthy 30-page motion to dismiss the case.

CBS executives also released a statement today, noting that they are "mystified" by Rather's "bizarre allegations" but will "vigorously" defend themselves in court if need be.

"Dan Rather is one of the most important figures in the history of broadcast journalism, and for more than 40 years was one of our most valued colleagues," CBS said in the statement. "That is why we at CBS are mystified and saddened by the baseless and self-serving allegations and distortions of fact raised in his lawsuit."

"Today we are filing a motion to dismiss," added the statement. "If we are required to proceed beyond this point, we will defend the case vigorously and demonstrate that the lawsuit is wholly without merit, and that the bizarre allegations by Mr. Rather are untrue."

"The Complaint is predicated on allegations of a bizarre 'scheme' extending from the White House to an array of CBS executives including Sumner Redstone, CBS's Executive Chairman, Leslie Moonves, CBS's Chief Executive Officer, and Andrew Heyward, formerly president of CBS News, all of whom, according to Rather, colluded to harm Rather's reputation and keep him off the air," add CBS lawyers. "Of course, there was no such nefarious scheme, and Rather's allegations bear no resemblance to reality. CBS and its executives are not now, and never have been, out to get Dan Rather."

So, we'll see what comes of this...

Huckabee's rating jump in Iowa:

Graph from Real Clear Politics.

My Presidential pick, Mike Huckabee, is on the move in Iowa:

The latest polls out of Iowa, dating back to the middle of October, show what is now more than a few good days for the former Arkansas Governor: They show him clearly, solidly in second place in the GOP race. That's a huge accomplishment for a guy with no money.

In a mid-October University of Iowa poll, Huckabee was tied for second place. In subsequent polls from American Research Group, Zogby, CBS/New York Times and Strategic Vision, he's in second place by himself, by as many as seven points, in the Strategic Vision poll, and six points, in the CBS/NYT poll. He trails only Mitt Romney, though by 12.8 points in the latest RCP Iowa Average.

The Huckmentum is unbelievable, considering that Huckabee has fewer staffers total than Romney has in Iowa alone. But with Sam Brownback out of the race, and despite big evangelical endorsements for Romney, Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson and John McCain, could it be that rank-and-file Christian conservatives are making Huckabee the candidate of their choice?

If so, look for Huckabee to sustain his momentum. The Iowa Christian vote is estimated by some to be as high as 40% of the GOP base. If Huckabee can form a coalition of even half those voters, he will vault himself into serious contention. For the record, Politics Nation said Huckabee would do well as far back as December of 2005, though we will admit that we were selling more stock than we were buying in recent months.

All good news, especially considering the odds that Guiliani will just fade away and Mitt Romney has no chance whatsoever.

Flying in the face of, well, really almost every religion on the planet, DNC Chairman and nutjob extraordinaire Howard Dean said the following on Monday:

"This country is not a theocracy. There are fundamental differences between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party believes that everybody in this room ought to be comfortable being an American Jew, not just an American; that there are no bars to heaven for anybody; that we are not a one-religion nation; and that no child or member of a football team ought to be able to cringe at the last line of a prayer before going onto the field."

So there you have it.  The Democratic Party has decided that there are no bars to heaven -- that anyone can get in regardless of faith, works, grace, or whatever.

New York Governor Spitzer has dropped both his plan to issue illegal aliens driver's licenses, and his great idea of imposing sales tax on purchases from online retailers like Amazon.  You know, right before Christmas.  Hillary was guardedly supportive of the plan (while, naturally, blaming it on the President at the same time) during the October 30 debate:

Well, what Governor Spitzer is trying to do is fill the vacuum left by the failure of this administration to bring about comprehensive immigration reform. We know in New York we have several million at any one time who are in New York illegally. They are undocumented workers. They are driving on our roads. The possibility of them having an accident that harms themselves or others is just a matter of the odds. It's probability.

Well, it's not probability, there are a number of skill and attention factors in play, etc.  Still, whatever.  Then after the politically tone-deaf Governor withdrew that proposal, and after her aides had already said she supported the measure, Hillary said:

I support Governor Spitzer's decision today to withdraw his proposal. His difficult job is made that much harder by the failure of the Congress and the White House to pass comprehensive immigration reform.

As President, I will not support drivers' licenses for undocumented people and will press for comprehensive immigration reform that deals with all of the issues around illegal immigration including border security and fixing our broken system.

I know; stop the presses.  A Clinton changed an issue stance overnight and likely coerced the Governor into shutting up right before a debate.  It's all just lead in to the real thing I wanted to post.  This was Obama's spokesman Bill Burton on Wednesday about the whole issue:

When it takes two weeks and six different positions to answer one question on immigration, it's easier to understand why the Clinton campaign would rather plant their questions than answer them.

I'm still trying to decide between Huckabee and Thompson.  Still.  This is cool.

Plans are in place for another voter's guide this year (2006 Guide).  Steve has already signed on again to provide his opinions on local and national elections.  I'm designing it this year to accommodate an unlimited (you know, practically) number of commentators, campaigns, candidates, districts, etc.  So if you want to participate just let me know -- by E-mail, please, not in the comments -- as soon as possible.  I'll need to know with some notice so that I can research and collate all of the local elections (bond issues, etc.) that the system will need to support.  I'll also have to set up commentator bios and such.

Obviously this is limited to people I know so I can ensure there are no cranks [read: Ron Paul drones] to gum it up.  But anyone is welcome to submit suggestions or feature requests.

Ah, the "fairness doctrine".  Even the mention of the Orwellian name brings back to mind the 1990s when Limbaugh was king and the dems were desperate to thwart him any way they could.  Senator Feinstein is "looking into" bringing it back.  The article in full:

WASHINGTON, June 24 (UPI) -- U.S. Sen. Diane Feinstein, D-Calif., said Sunday she is "looking at" the possibility of reviving the fairness doctrine for U.S. broadcasters.

Feinstein, speaking on "Fox News Sunday" with Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., said talk radio in particular has presented a one-sided view of immigration reform legislation being considered by the Senate.

U.S. talk radio is dominated by conservative voices.

"This is a very complicated bill," said Feinstein. "Most people don't know what's in this bill. Therefore, to just have one or two things dramatized and taken out of context, such as the word amnesty -- we have a silent amnesty right now, but nobody goes into that. Nobody goes into the flaws of our broken system."

Feinstein said the measure before the Senate "fixes those flaws" but that doesn't get presented on talk radio, which she said "pushes people to ... extreme views without a lot of information."

Asked if she would revive the fairness doctrine, which used to require broadcasters to present competing sides of controversial issues, Feinstein said she was "looking at it."

"I remember when there was a fairness doctrine," she said, "and I think there was much more serious correct reporting to people."

Ahh, that's the free-speech, capitalist society I like.  Don't like the opinions on talk radio?  Free market system preventing boring, unpopular alternative views from being aired?  Why, get the government to force 'em!

Mike Huckabee on evolution vs. creation:

When the topic came up again Tuesday night in a CNN-sponsored debate in New Hampshire, one of those evolution skeptics, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, offered a spirited defense of the biblical creation narrative.

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth," said Huckabee, an ordained Baptist minister. "A person either believes that God created the process or believes that it was an accident and that it just happened all on its own."

Huckabee also said that if Americans "want a president who doesn't believe in God, there's probably plenty of choices. But if I'm selected as president of this country, they'll have one who believes in those words that God did create."

He went on to quote Martin Luther: " 'Here I stand, I can do no other.' And I will not take that back."

Huckabee later added, "If anybody wants to believe that they are the descendants of a primate, they are certainly welcome to do it."

However, when pressed about whether he believed in a literal interpretation of the timeline laid out in Genesis -- that God created the world in six days about 6,000 years ago -- Huckabee said, "I don't know."

"Whether God did it in six days or whether he did it in six days that represented periods of time, he did it. And that's what's important."

And Huckabee made it clear that he did not appreciate the question, either, calling it unfair.

"It's interesting that that question would even be asked of somebody running for president," Huckabee said. "I'm not planning on writing the curriculum for an eighth-grade science book. I'm asking for the opportunity to be president of the United States."

A good point, that.  It's just too bad he has no chance of winning.  From everything I've read he seems an excellent candidate for President.

Heard an interesting exchange towards the end of National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley's press briefing on 6/1/07.

Q Steve, on Russia before, you were talking about President Putin and saying, well, there's been an escalation in rhetoric. But it seems like it's been more than that when he's comparing the U.S. of imperialism -- he's used the phrase, "Third Reich." When you talk about working with Russia, how do you really work with them as a partner when he's throwing out rhetoric like that?

MR. HADLEY: Well, there's been a lot of press reporting on that. We, of course, talked to the Russians about that specific reference, and they told us that they were not making any comparison between the United States and the Third Reich.

They're talking about this comment where Russian President Putin compared our "imperialism" (whatever he means by that) to that of, well, Hitler.  Unfortunately there's no Godwin's Law in international politics.

For that matter, given recent levels of social discourse, having one in domestic politics would be nice too...

Anyway, what struck me is that I can't for the life of me understand how they can say what they said and then come back and say they weren't making a comparison between the U.S. and the Third Reich.  Let's go to the quote:

"We do not have the right to forget the causes of any war, which must be sought in the mistakes and errors of peacetime," Mr Putin said.

"Moreover, in our time, these threats are not diminishing," he said. "They are only transforming, changing their appearance. In these new threats, as during the time of the Third Reich, are the same contempt for human life and the same claims of ex