FrontPage Magazine's symposium on Europe is well worth reading. The issue is whether there is a coming "clash of civilizations" between America and Europe. For what it's worth my take on this is as follows: (1) there is no impending clash in the strong sense -- intense mutual hatred, warfare or the constant threat of warfare, etc. but (2) a major rift is developing and it will get worse if America remains true to its values. The rift is the result of a European project that is socialist and internationalist in character. It is the internationalist quality that is problematic. If Europe wants to be socialist, that's bad news for Euopeans but no major concern of ours. But, perhaps sensing that a pacifist/socialist Europe cannot effectively compete with the U.S., the Europeans want to dictate to us on issues ranging from air pollution control to the death penalty. Most of all they want to constrain our military power and they want us to submit to their version of international law. If we resist this package (and it is far from clear that we will -- we probably won't if the Democrats obtain control), then the rift will grow and, though not amounting to a clash of civilizations, will be quite significant. It should not, however, impede our efforts in the real clash of civilizations -- the one with the Islamofascists. The Europeans will have plenty of incentive to cooperate in exchanging intelligence and (as long as we retain control of our own foreign policy) we will be able to do the real fighting with or without the Europeans. Our key allies in the fighting will be non-western European nations. And the key battleground in our rivalry with the old western Europe will be the new eastern Europe. In the short term, we should at least hold our own in the struggle for those "hearts and minds" (see the photos that Rocket Man posted this weekend of President Bush's trip to Eastern Europe). In the long run, Europe has the advantage if it can make its socialist project succeed. But in the long run, it is doubtful that this project will succeed. As most of the FrontPage symposium members agree, the EU process will be a bumpy one, and even if it goes smoothly the resulting bloated socialist monolith is unlikely to deliver well enough to sustain itself over the long haul.

In the second year of its return to life, the Claremont Review of Books has become my favorite periodical publication, period. The Review is published by the Claremont Institute and shares the central aim of the Institute--the restoration of the founding principles of the United States to their rightful place in our public life. (Our friend and faithful reader Bruce Sanborn is the chairman of the Institute.) As a publication, the Review aims to play roughly the same role for the conservative movement today that the New Republic did for the progressive movement in the early twentieth century. The Review is edited by Professor Charles Kesler, preeminent professor of political science of the younger generation of philosphically oriented scholars. Charles teaches at Clarmont McKenna College and is a fellow of the Institute.

Much of the Review's fall issue is now available online at the Web site of the Claremont Institute. One of my favorite pieces in the issue is the estimable Steve Hayward's review of Robert Caro's current installment of his LBJ biography: "The Making of LBJ."

Minnesota Republican Governor-elect Tim Pawlenty has named a 16-person transition team full of friends of ours. The St. Paul Pioneer Press account is particularly astute: "Pawlenty fills transition team with moderate, conservative Republicans." The article notes the connections of several of the transition team members to Minneapolis's conservative think tank, the Center of the Amerian Experiment. Rocket Man is the immediate past chairman of the Center; both he and I are current members of its board. Mike Wigley, a member of the transition team who is a Center board member with us and who is also a member of the board of the Minnesota Taxpayers League, is simply a ferocious, take-no-prisoners conservative stalwart and advocate of limited government. He is only one of the sixteen, but on average, and despite the tenor of the Pioneer Press account, this is a very conservative transition team. May it be an omen!

More on the Wellstone death rally: The St. Paul Pioneer Press carries the AP's interesting retrospective on the Wellstone death rally: "Wellstone memorial was political theater almost from the start."

We are delighted to report that the Minneapolis police have made arrests in connection with the murder of 12-year-old Tyesha Edwards. The Star Tribune has posted its account as "Police make arrests in Tyesha Edwards shooting." We have written a column prompted by the Edwards murder that is critical of the mayor, the chief of police, the Democrats who have ruled Minneapolis for the past 20 years, and the Star Tribune, all of whom have remained silent as gangs have taken over poor Minneapolis neighborhoods such as the one in which Tyesha Edwards lived. At this moment, however, we offer the Minneapolis police our thanks for their dogged legwork in tracking the suspects down and our sincere congratulations for what appears to be the prompt apprehension of the individuals involved.

In addition, there is this Washington Times editorial on the Louisiana Senate race. The Times makes the essential point that Mary Landrieu's voting record is not that of the "independent voice for Louisiana" she claims to be. Unlike her colleague Senator Breaux, Landrieu consistently votes with Tom Daschle and against President Bush. And, though she is certainly independent of the president, she is quite dependent on the trial lawyers, and they in turn can depend on her. It is the job of Landrieu's opponent, Susan Terrell, to expose Landrieu's liberal record to the voters of Louisiana. Terrell seems to be doing an effective job of this. In doing so, she opens herself up to charges of "negativity." But that is a price well worth paying, given the dynamics of this race.

In contrast to the Post, the Washngton Time's editorial section is, as usual, full of valuable material. For example, here is Frank Gaffney's fine piece about Saudi Arabia. As Gaffney explains, whatever was the case with the Saudi ambassador's wife, there is simply too much Saudi money being funneled into the Islamofascist cause. Gaffney cites the following ominous enterprises that benefit from Saudi largesse: prison recruitment programs aimed at transforming American felons into radical Islamists; recruitment of Wahhabist chaplains into the U.S. military; Wahhabi indoctrination efforts on more than 500 college campuses; and the pursuit of a virulently anti-American agenda in U.S. mosques. As Gaffney concludes, "with friends like Saudi Arabia, who needs enemies?"

There's not much of value in the Washington Post's editorial section today, although Trunk and Rocket Man may want to take a shot at this latest attempt to wage class warfare by our pet target E.J. Dionne. And the letters section contains this from Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League about Egyptian television's anti-semitic blockbuster. The Egyptian Ambassador apparently has claimed that the show contains only a few anti-semitic references. Foxman refutes this rather lame defense.

I know I should be happy today, what with FrontPage publishing my piece (thanks for all your help, Trunk). However, it's hard to stay upbeat after reading Amir Taheri's piece for National Review Online about French anti-Americanism. The depressing thing is not the anti-Americansim, it's the fact that we have permitted a knee jerk anti-American nation to influence our approach to Iraq. In the past, I have suggested that France is to the war on Islamofascism as India was to the Cold War -- a sanctimonius irrelevancy. It's time to recognize that fact and take away France's seat at the table.

David Horowitz's terrific online magazine FrontPage features a brilliant column by our own Deacon--"The Cheating Heart of the Democratic Party." It is this morning's must-read column, although it appears on FrontPage in impressive company including columns by Daniel Pipes and Ronald Radosh as well as a symposium with Angelo Codevilla, Radek Sikorski and Joel Mowbray. Great quote: "[K]ey Democratic leaders now regard issues and rules not as serious things in themselves, but as playthings to be manipulated almost without limit for political purposes. It is not so much that the Democrats try to hide the ball; most politicians do that. Rather, for the likes of Clinton and Gore, it is not clear that there is any ball to hide."

The appropriate soundtrack with which to read Deacon's column is of course the Ray Charles crossover smash of Hank Williams' "Your Cheatin' Heart." Great line: "Your cheatin' heart will tell on you."

William Safire on the contest between Sharon and Netanyahu for leadership in the Likud Party. The winner of that contest will almost surely win the general election in January and lead Israel for the next few years. Safire clearly likes both but prefers Sharon. I'm inclined to agree. I like Netanyahu's harder line, but trust Sharon more. Keep in mind that Natanyahu wasn't such a hard-liner when he was in power. By all accounts, Sharon is well ahead. Here, the Washington Post reports that Netanyahu is trying to close the gap by comparing Israel's death rate from terrorism during his years in power with the rate under Sharon. This strikes me as a fairly misleading comparison for the reasons stated in the article.

After a not very glorious first two years, the Administration seizes the free-trade high ground with a dramatic proposal for all WTO countries to eliminate tariffs on manufactured goods by the year 2015. Can they pull it off? I don't know, but no one is doing very well betting against President Bush these days.

Late last night I saw what must have been the second debate between Landrieu and Terrell (it's not the case that someone from Power Line is always awake; it just seems that way). I must say that I thought Landrieu did well in that debate. She is more telegenic than Terrell and is a more confident speaker. Terrell comes across as far more negative, but I suppose that's normal in her role as the challenger. It certainly doesn't bother me and I have no idea of how it's playing in Louisiana -- it probably depends on whether Landrieu is well-liked. I think she's reasonably popular, that it is President Bush who's making Terrell a viable challenger. In that case, there may be a downside in going too negative. On the issues, neither one was blowing the other away, as far as I could tell. On the plus side for Terrell, she held her own and certainly did not appear to be in over her head. She also made what I thought was the most telling point of the debate when she said that Landrieu's voting record (measured on some unspecified percentage scale of liberalness) was much closer to Kennedy's than to Breaux's. If that's the one thing voters remember from the debate, and it could be, then Terrell will be in good shape. Landrieu seems to have distilled her message into the following: I will often side with Bush on particular issues, but I'm not going back to Washington to support Bush; I'm going back to be an independent voice for Louisiana. In this way, Landrieu gives voters a reason to vote for her instead of Terrell without appearing to be liberal or hostile to the president. Assuming that voters overlook Landrieu's apparently liberal voting record, the success of this message probably depends on just how popular Bush is in Louisiana. He's obviously popular, and if he's popular enough, Landrieu's message may defeat her.

Mark Steyn's latest is "A bombing pause--for 12 months?"

Michael Ledeen describes the "potentially earth-shaking events in Iran" over the last week. Ledeen notes that "Last Friday something like half a million Iranian citizens took to the streets to demonstrate their disgust with the regime of the Islamic Republic....Contrary to what little you have been able to read in the popular press, these demonstrations were not limited to Tehran, but spread all over the country, with amazing results." Ledeen thinks the Mullahs' regime may be close to collapse, and is impatient with the Administration for not doing more to help liberate the Iranian people. I agree with Ledeen that events in Iran are promising, and to some degree I share his impatience. But, while there are obviously good reasons to go after not only Iran, but also Saudi Arabia, North Korea and other states, I think the Administration is right to knock them off one at a time. The alternative, I guess, would be to launch an across-the-board assault on the Arab world, together with other non-Arab terrorist sponsors. This seems like a poor idea. While impatience is understandable, I see no reason to assume that the Administration is indifferent to events in Iran or anywhere else.

Newsweek's Fareed Zakaria on "why it's now or never with Iraq." Zakaria shows just how bad the U.N. resolution is. It is not enough to go to war, under the resolution, if Saddam Hussein makes a false or incomplete declaration regarding his weapons of mass destruction. Iraq must also fail to "comply and cooperate" in the inspection process through which the U.N. tries (but maybe not that hard) to find the weapons about which Saddam will have lied. So if Iraq does well enough in the cat and mouse game established by Colin Powell and the U.N., our standing to protect our national security interests will be compromised. Even if President Bush is able to make things come out right in the end, it is most discouraging that we have enlisted in the process Zakaria describes.

The Terrell/Landrieu race is heating up; today's Times-Picauyne story, reporting on the candidates' latest debate, is headlined: "Latest Debate Smacks of Brawl as Landrieu, Terrell Go On Attack." They're not kidding: Terrell's introductory statement blasted Landrieu as ineffective and accused her of voting with Ted Kennedy. Landrieu countered by expressing outrage at Terrell ads attacking Landrieu for buying a mansion in Washington, saying--in what seems to be a non sequitur--"I can't believe the negative campaign she has run about a working mother trying to be with her children when she is a mother herself." Terrell concluded with these comments on abortion: "I'm 100 percent pro-life. As a practicing Catholic, I did not leave my faith, as did Mary Landrieu." The Times-Picayune reports that Landrieu appeared "stunned." Well, one good thing is we shouldn't hear any more from feminists about how politics wouldn't be so nasty if there were more women involved.

Roll Call reports that Democratic Kentucky Congressman Ken Lucas is talking to Dennis Hastert and other Republicans about switching parties.

Jules Witcover of the Baltimore Sun covered politics during Nixon's pre-presidential days. He finds similarities and differences between the Nixon of that time and the Al Gore of today. Witcover's theme is one that I mentioned briefly when I first compared the two -- the post 1960 Nixon was cautous and highly disciplined, whereas Gore claims he is going to throw caution to the wind. I don't actually believe Gore will do any such thing, but I also doubt that he is capable of the kind of self-discipline Nixon was able to exercise.

This, folks, might ruin your day. A writer in Salon (via FrontPage Magazine) details the threat posed by shoulder-fired infrared-guided missiles, which can easily shoot down American commercial airliners. I had been vaguely aware of this threat, but had not realized that since the 1970's, shoulder-fired missiles have already hit at least 42 civilian aircraft in various countries. Some possible defenses exist, but at present, American civilian airliners are completely defenseless. The FBI has been warning against this danger since last May. According to this report, a recent CIA intelligence briefing advised top military and Administration officials "that terrorists have likely smuggled shoulder-launched missiles into the United States in recent months."

Studies in liberal governance: This morning's Star Tribune carries another story on the murder of 12-year-old Tyesha Edwards. The mayor feels the family's pain: "Mayor consoles Tyesha's family as police seek clues."

Oops. Now lawyers for September 11 victims are alleging that Princess Haifa al-Faisal, wife of the Saudi Ambassador, had at apartment in Washington, D.C. which was occupied in 1997 by one Mansour Majid. Majid then allegedly moved to Dearborn, Michigan, where he roomed with three men who were convicted of terrorist activity last August. They may have been part of a sleeper cell. Now, it is possible that Majid was a police informant rather than a terrorist sympathizer. It is also likely that his connection with the Princess was coincidental. Actually, I suspect that a high percentage of Saudi nationals living in the U.S. could be shown to have this kind of indirect connection to terrorists or terrorist sympathizers. It probably doesn't take six degrees of separation to get from a Saudi princess to al Qaeda. Whether this is a vindication or an indictment of the Saudis, you can judge.

Yesterday's Los Angles Times carried Professor Shlomo Avineri's "A Haunting Echo." Professor Avineri is a renowned teacher of political science at Hebrew University in Jerusalem. I received a copy of his piece by e-mail via Laurie Mylroie's Iraq Newsletter. I am unable to link to the piece and am therefore taking the liberty of pasting it in below:

JERUSALEM -- Let me start on a personal note: Three of my grandparents perished during the Holocaust in Poland. This is why I find it an unspeakable obscenity that my three grandchildren, who live in Jerusalem, may one day be exposed to gas attacks by Iraq -- they have already been issued gas masks. I am not alone among Israelis in having such feelings.

Together with strategic considerations, thoughts like mine are ever present as Israelis contemplate the complex prospect of a U.S.-led military strike against Iraq.

During the Gulf War of 1991, Israel experienced 39 missile attacks by Iraq. So it's not surprising that today, most Israelis are deeply ambivalent about the prospects of military action against Saddam Hussein. On the one hand, they feel deeply threatened by Iraq and its development of nonconventional weapons. The elimination of a bloody and aggressive dictator like Hussein from the neighborhood would make Israel more secure, and so there is an almost unanimous support in Israel for toppling him, by force if necessary.

On the other hand, Israel knows that if a military campaign is undertaken, Hussein may respond, once again, by launching missile attacks against the Jewish state.

Israelis understand the reluctance to go to war; it should always be the last resort. There is sympathy here for a Europe which, devastated twice by wars in the last century, prefers negotiations to force. Even German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's stated refusal to join a United Nations-sanctioned action against Iraq is, paradoxically, understood by many Israelis. They may criticize the political wisdom of such a stance, but they also believe a pacifist Germany is better than a belligerent one.

Ultimately, though, Israelis cannot forget what happened when a brutal and megalomaniacal dictator was ignored for too long during the last century. Hussein is obviously not Hitler, but there are some haunting parallels that cannot be overlooked. European appeasement of Hitler in the 1930s is today viewed almost universally as a strategic mistake and a morally bankrupt act.

Perhaps we should examine the lessons.

Imagine Europe in 1936. Nazi Germany had not yet attacked any country, but Hitler had:

* violated the Versailles Treaty, which limited Germany's military capabilities, and started rearming on a massive scale;

* publicly committed himself to reversing the territorial losses of Germany in World War I;

* reoccupied the demilitarized Rhineland, in blatant contravention of international agreements signed by Germany;

* abolished the democratic structure of the Weimar Republic and banned all political parties except his own;

* thrown tens of thousands of opposition members, Jews, Gypsies and gays into concentration camps;

* expelled Jews from public service, the professions, universities and schools and confiscated much of their property.

But because Hitler had not yet attacked any foreign country, his treatment of Jews and others was deemed an internal matter. Europe -- and the League of Nations, which Germany had in the meantime left -- ignored the catastrophe that was brewing. We now refer to that willful blindness as appeasement.

Imagine what might have happened had Britain and France followed a different path and launched a military strike against Germany, with or without a League of Nations mandate. Hitler's Germany, not yet the military power it would become in 1939, would have been quickly crushed. In the process, of course, numerous innocent Germans would have been hurt or killed, but Germany's later aggression against Austria, Czechoslovakia and Poland, which caused huge numbers of casualties, would never have happened. There would have been no World War II, no Nazi occupation of Europe, no Holocaust. Last and perhaps not least, some 12 million ethnic Germans who were expelled after 1945 from Eastern Europe would still live today in their ancestral lands.

Declaring war on Hitler's Germany in 1936 would have been the correct course of action, morally and strategically, for the European powers. European pacifists would have opposed military action, but they too would have been spared the agonies of the following years and of a devastating world war.

In a way, Hussein's record today is worse than Hitler's was in 1936. Hussein has already invaded two of his neighbors (Iran and Kuwait), attacked Israel with missiles and used poison gas against his own population. His treatment of the Iraqi Kurds is much worse than Hitler's treatment of the Jews was by 1936. And Hussein may possess weapons of mass destruction Hitler hadn't dreamed of. With all the understandable reluctance to launch a war, shouldn't Europe -- and the rest of the world -- be considering these parallels? Wouldn't the world be a better place today if the international community in 1936 had possessed the will to stop Hitler?

The question of what happens in Iraq after Hussein is legitimate, but it should not be used as an excuse for inaction. When Britain declared war on Nazi Germany in 1939, had the British planned for a "post-Hitler" Germany?

Would President Franklin D. Roosevelt have believed that U.S. troops would still be stationed in Germany 60 years after the U.S. entered the war?

Wars are unpredictable, even for the victors, and therefore should be waged only if all other avenues have been exhausted. But all who condemn the 1930s appeasement of Germany should reflect long and hard on whether a failure to act today against Iraq will one day be viewed the same way.

If Hitler had been stopped earlier, my three grandparents -- and numerous uncles, aunts and cousins -- would not have perished in the gas chambers. That's my personal story. But the "if only" that stems from the 1930s appeasement extends to tens of millions who lost family members, both civilians and soldiers, who might have been spared. A world without World War II would have been a better place. A world without Hussein will ultimately be a safer place, regardless of how he is brought down.

Stephen Schwartz is the guy we want to read on the latest revelations regarding high-level Saudi complicity with our enemies: "The real axis of evil."

The Washington Times reports that, in the wake of this month's elecoral victories, the Administration will introduce legislation accelerating the scheduled tax cuts, expanding IRA and 401(k) plans, and providing additional incentives to business investment. All of this will be billed as a stimulus package to boost economic growth. I think this is great on public policy and fairness grounds; how much it will boost the economy is debatable. But economic growth is almost sure to accelerate some time in the next eighteen months in any event, and these measures, even if their contribution is marginal, will allow the Administration to garner some of the credit. And it is absolutely necessary for the Administration to be seen as making a major effort to support the economy. If they are able to include drilling for oil in Alaska, they will be doing about all that can be done.

National Review Online's Rod Dreher reports that a California-based Muslim legal group has filed a complaint with the Massachusetts Bar requesting disciplinary action against Alan Dershowitz. The essence of the complaint is that Dershowitz advocated war crimes in an op-ed piece in which he supported leveling Palestinian villages known to have harbored terrorists, after giving residents 24 hours to evacuate. Dershowitz denies that the Geneva Accords prohibit what he's advocating. However, it is not unlikely that the International Criminal Court would disagree if a case involving Israel were before it. Dershowitz proclaims, reasonably enough, that he is not frightened. He notes that the "Massachusetts bar lives by American law, not by Islamic law." However, the issue down the road is going to be the extent to which American institutions, including the Massachusetts bar, live by American law or by international law. If international law gains a foothold here, a future Dershowitz may have cause to be less sanguine.

Thomas Edsall of the Washington Post delivers one of the more thoughtful pieces I've seen on the "serious structural ailments" of the Democratic party. He identifies three main fault lines: (1) erosion of support among women due to concerns about terrorism and Republican gains on issues like education, (2) new tensions between black and white Democrats, this time pitting public-sector blacks and Hispanics against well-educated whites, (3) inability to connect with a cohort of 18-34 year-old voters who tend to be libertarian and favor the Republican approach to school choice and Social Security. Edsall does not anticipate the kind of pitched battle for the soul of the Democratic Party that we have seen in the past. Instead, he believes that we may simply see increasing defections among the ranks.

Shortly after the arrest of the D.C. area snipers, Rocket Man wrote that, next time, the police work will have to be better. Apart from that comment, there has been little public criticism of our local police chief, Charles Moose. However, here, a Maryland criminologist named Susan Paisner, writing in the Washington Post finds much to criticize in the Moose-led investigation.

Rocket Man, the person here in Washington whose opinion I trust most about the Senate (a former high-level staffer) says that Landrieu is a lightweight who has never created a "Senatorial" impression here. If Terrell is turning out not to be particularly lightweight, one can understand Landrieu's frustration. I don't know much about Terrell, but as far as I'm aware she has made it without the kind of assistance Landrieu received from her powerful political family.

Rocket Man, I enjoyed your blogs from last night about Kennedy and Nixon. As to Nixon's liberal domestic policy, I believe, based on what Leonard Garment and others have said, that Nixon didn't care much about domestic policy. He saw himself as a world figure and just wanted to do well enough in domestic affairs to stay in office, thereby maintaining his position as the primary actor on the world stage. The three liberal domestic programs we've been discussing -- wage-price controls, affirmative action, and guaranteed annual income -- can all be viewed as short-term measures to avoid problems (e.g., inflation and race riots) that could have hurt Nixon's political standing. That said, I don't think that Nixon saw any of these programs as particularly harmful. As I recall, Nixon had some involvement with wage-price controls during World War II and considered them an acceptable anti-inflationary approach in war time. As to affirmative action, Nixon's confidants have said that he imposed this program on the building trades in order to drive a wedge between two Democratic constituencies, blacks and unions. Historians agree that this was his motive. I've never been completely convinced. however, because it was the union members whose votes Nixon wanted most, and they presumably were less likely to vote for Nixon by virtue of his administration's imposition of quotas. And I agree with Rocket Man that Nixon had genuine sympathy for African-Americans and might well have thought that forced integration of the building trades was a valid measure at that time. Thus, the conventionally accepted story of Nixon and affirmative action may not be completely true. But I think it's true in spirit. Whatever Nixon did in the area of domestic policy was more likely to be motived by pure politics than by anything else.

Lately we've heard more from the Administration about disarming Iraq and less about regime change. I understand the forces pushing in that direction, but it would be a tragedy if Saddam Hussein were allowed to remain in power. In this article in yesterday's Toronto Globe and Mail, Margaret Wente describes the horrific reality of life in Iraq, through the eyes of an escapaee from Saddam's prisons. Colin Powell needs to read this. Warning: It is not for the faint of heart.

I didn't see the Terrell/Landrieu debate on CSpan, but PoliPundit did. He says that "Unlike her performance on Meet the Press, Terrell seems to be sure of herself. She's confident, holds her own against Landrieu and looks Senatorial." Maybe that explains Landrieu's post-debate meltdown. PoliPundit has much more interesting commentary.

One of our faithful readers is a California resident who recently visited the Twin Cities and has written us regarding the items I've posted on Minneapolis's gang presence. Deleting only his kind words about the Power Line, I'm posting his message in its entirety as follows:

"Concerning the comments of the Trunk concerning the silence as to gang violence in the Twin Cities. I live in central California in an area with alot of gang activity. One of the things that identifies gang members is the colors and markings of their clothes, mainly black, red, or blue. Many companies are selling hats in these colors. The L.A. Dodgers hats are blue, but recently, they have been coming out in a red style.

"Two weeks ago I was in the Rosedale Mall in the Twin Cities, and happened to be in a sporting goods store that specialized in hats and jerseys. I was shocked at their new line of hats that represented the gang lifestyle, i.e. black with an 'N' on the front or similar designs. When I asked the clerk if she knew she was selling gang style clothing, she denied it and told me that they didn't have any gang problems in the cities.

"As a high school teacher, it bothers me that companies look to make a fast buck selling kids this kind of merchandise. The bad news for you is that if I could tell that the merchandise was being marketed to gangbangers, then you have a very serious problem in your area. A few years ago didn't they call it Murderapolis? [As noted by the New York Times, they did indeed, and will again.--ed.]

"Next time you are in a local mall, go in and check out what items are being sold in the sports apparel section. If you see a Twins hat in black, then they are in on it too."

Don't know how we missed Mark Steyn's latest: "Hey, Roeper! I was right." (Courtesy of our friends at RealClearPolitics).

When it broke, we posted on the story about the Saudi princess, wife of the Ambassador to the U.S., who paid $2,000 a month into the bank account of a man who later gave financial assistance to two of the September 11 hijackers. Over the last day or two, this story has been the occasion for considerable hysteria in the blogosphere, as various critics have excoriated the Administration and the FBI for not pursuing this money trail aggressively enough, and, more generally, for defending the Saudis as our allies when in fact, as everyone knows, they are the prime financial supporters of Wahabbism and their money has funded various terrorist groups and causes, both directly and indirectly. This morning the Saudi princess' generosity was discussed on various news programs; here, the Toronto Star reports on anti-Saudi comments by John McCain, Joe Lieberman and others made earlier today.

As to this particular incident, the princess claims that she supported a large number of Saudi people and causes; here, she was aiding a Saudi woman living in America who asked for her help paying for medical treatment. Two thousand dollars a month sounds like a lot for medical treatment; then again, the Saudis have a lot of money. My guess, for what little it's worth, is that this particular trail won't lead anywhere. If the Saudi royal family wanted to aid terrorists, it would be hard to think of a worse way than to have one of their own--the wife of the U.S. ambassador, no less--write easily-traced checks, even to an intermediary. (Of course, she could be a renegade al Qaeda supporter operating independently of her husband and the Saudi government, but this seems highly unlikely.) More broadly, this episode may be useful in keeping the pressure on the Saudis until their turn comes, probably several years from now. This is most likely what McCain et al. had in mind.

Trunk, thanks for posting Schickel's piece about Sam Fuller. Schickel is right that Fuller was a great critic of middle-class hypocrisy, and never more so than in The Naked Kiss, which I consider his best film. However, Fuller was no Hollywood leftist. In fact, he delivered a superb anti-communist film during the 1950s with Richard Widmark and Thelma Ritter. I don't remember the name of the movie, but it has a great scene where Ritter realizes that this man she liked is a communist. He says, sneeringly, "What do you know about communists?" Ritter replies, "Not much; I know I don't like them." Unlike so many in Hollywood at that time, Fuller stood up for the common sense of the American people and was never ashamed of our perceived lack of sophistication.

The Indonesian police (with help from the Australians) are rounding up the Bali bombers, and in the process are gaining a great deal of information about their operation, especially since the leader of the group, Imam Samudra, was captured. The Sydney Morning Herald reports that bin Laden videos and tapes have been found in the plotters' homes. More troubling is the claim by Samudra that one of the bombs--the one that destroyed Paddy's Irish Pub--was not a car bomb, but was carried by a suicide bomber. Indonesian authorities say that the forensic evidence seems compatible with this claim, and are carrying out DNA tests and other investigations to try to verify it. Although there have been many bombings by Indonesian Muslims in recent years, none have been carried out by suicide bombers. Indonesian and Australian authorities are expressing great concern about the possible spread of this tactic outside of the Middle East.

One more shaft of sunlight to pierce the weekend darkness: Hey, it's the holiday season. Some Web site--I believe it may have been the fine folks at No Left Turns--steered me to the site of the The Richard Nixon Library Museum Store. I have never seen a museum store quite like it, one with a great sense of humor. The humor is especially evident to me in the World Famous Nixon and Elvis T-shirt, the one that (according to the museum store) caused the media to go wild when they introduced it.

After reading the Times-Picayune article on the aftermath of the Landrieu/Terrell debate, I would say Landrieu can see the handwriting on the wall and is becoming unhinged, like a number of other Democrats--Tom Daschle, Bill Moyers, Garrison Keillor et al.

The fallout continues from Friday's Powderhorn Park neighborhood murder of the 12-year-old caught in the crossfire of a couple of Minneapolis's finest gangbangers. The Star Tribune devotes more page-one coverage to "Friends and family gather to mourn and remember Tyesha" while the St. Paul Pioneer Press story "My heart was just torn apart" is relegated to the paper's metro section. Although both stories place the murder in the context of neighborhood crime, the great silence in these stories is the transformation of Minneapolis into a haven for gangbangers, a transformation that the city has silently and passively endured.

Before "Saving Private Ryan" and "Band of Brothers," the best movie ever made about World War II was Sam Fuller's The Big Red One. If you've never heard of Fuller or The Big Red One, please take a look at the review of Fuller's posthumous autobiography (sort-of) A Third Face: My Tale of Writing, Fighting, and Filmmaking. The review is from the Sunday Times Book Review and is by the film critic Richard Schickel: "From Tabloid to Celluloid."

Matt Drudge has posted an interesting account by the Times-Picayune of Saturday's debate taped for broadcast today between Mary Landrieu and Suzi Terrell: "Candidate debate has unfriendly end." I leave the interpretation to Rocket Man.

And here is one last photo from Bush's trip, showing him addressing the crowd in Bucharest with the Romanian and American flags on banners around the square.

Analysis of President Bush's trip to Eastern Europe has been spotty. Here, the New York Post offers a concise and positive summary of the President's accomplishments over the past five days.

On its Web site, the New York Times carries a package on President Bush's speeches in Lithuania and Romania yesterday that includes Elisabeth Bumiller's story on them, the full text of the Bucharest speech, and a one minute video excerpt of the Bucharest speech. One click takes you to the package under Bumiller's story, "Bush appeals to new allies on Iraq plans."

According to Bumiller, in Bucharest Bush spoke to "tens of thousands" of Romanians and, according to me, he gave an eloquent, moving speech that expresses the heart of the man and his statesmanship. Do take a look.

George Will sees a sunny future for the Republicans in the Senate.

As to Kennedy, I think on the whole he was a good President. I also think it is fortunate that he served for less than three years. That, really, is the remarkable thing about Kennedy--how short his presidency was, for all that has been said and written about it since. I read somewhere, long ago, that had Kennedy not been murdered, his administration would surely have come crashing down in scandal. I think that is right. With his poor health, his reliance on multiple drugs and shady physicians to get through each day, his extraordinarily indiscreet sexual escapades--multiple nude women in the White House swimming pool, minutes before his wife arrived on the scene, with the Secret Service telephoning warnings to clear out the girls--a disaster was sure to happen sooner or later. And in the 1960's such a scandal would not have met with the sympathetic reception that Bill Clinton got in the 1990's. So my assessment of Kennedy is that he was a pretty good although not especially interesting President, but it is a good thing that he was President so briefly.

I agree that there is a psychological kinship between Nixon and Gore. I think it is this: both are (or were) by nature private, closed-in people who had difficulty relating easily to others and were therefore fundamentally bad politicians. But both were more or less consumed by a craving for acclaim or approval that could only be satisfied by the Presidency. This obsession drove both to overcome (more or less) their lack of natural political ability, but in the course of doing so they exposed themselves nakedly and rather clumsily to the public, so that watching them was often appalling, like a train wreck in slow motion. By rights, Al Gore's career should be over, but I wouldn't bet a nickel against him; like Nixon, he will persevere and he may yet be rewarded.

Nixon was probably an opportunist in some ways, but I wouldn't be so sure he didn't believe in affirmative action and a guaranteed income. He once told an interviewer (during his wilderness years) that his mistake was starting out in politics as a Republican; he should have been a Democrat. I think he may have justified both of these policies on pragmatic grounds; quotas as the most direct way to help minority groups for whom he felt genuine sympathy, and a guaranteed income as a way to abolish, with one stroke, the whole welfare system whose effects he rightly considered to be harmful--doing the maximum practical good for poor people at the least possible cost. (Nixon knew that we spend far more money on poverty programs than it would take to "abolish" poverty if the same money were simply given to poor people, and he had no attachment to social workers.) What I find harder to understand is how he justified price controls, since he had some understanding of economics. But Nixon came of political age in an era that is now long gone, when a fierce anti-communism was often combined with what would now be considered very liberal domestic policies. I don't think Nixon's politics were very different from Scoop Jackson's or even, perhaps, Harry Truman's. But he survived into an era in which conservatives were anti-Communist and liberals were not, and in that era his politics often seemed puzzling. Whether his foreign policy initiatives made sense I'm really not sure, but with detente substituted for anti-Communism, there wasn't much conservatism left.

Speaking of Nixon, yesterday was the 39th anniversary of John Kennedy's assassination. It coincides wtih additional revelations about the extent of Kennedy's medical problems and his reliance on medication. Here is Peggy Noonan's Wall Street Journal piece, "Camelot on Painkillers." Noonan thinks that Robert Dallek, the historian responsible for the latest revelations, is too quick to conclude that the drugs Kennedy took did not impair his leadership. I'm not sure. Kennedy certainly made some significant missteps as president. On the other hand, these were probably commensurate with what one would expect from a drug free president of the same age placed under the same extraordinary pressure by an aggressive and powerful adversary. Moreover, Kennedy's presidency was, in my view, clearly more successful than at least three of the four that followed. Nonetheless, it is still possible that the medication did impair Kennedy's performance in important respects, and this leads to the objection that he improperly concealed it from the public. Noonan is correct that his condition should have been fully divulged before the 1960 election and that it should not have been covered up after his death.

Several readers took exception to my comparison of Al Gore to Richard Nixon earlier this week. In response, I acknowledged that Nixon had virtues Gore lacks, but I stood by the comparison. I may have to reconsider, however, now that Frank Rich of the New York Times has also compared Gore with Nixon. Actually, the Rich piece reminds me of another similarity. Gore is now going on television shows like Letterman trying to show that, in his new incarnation, he has a sense of humor. The "new Nixon" did the same thing, appearing memorably on "Laugh In" to deliver that show's trade-mark "Sock it to me" line. Rich's article reflects the left's ambivalence about Gore and his impending run at the presdency.

I blogged about Nixon a few times during the summer. Since then, we have picked up many new readers, so I'll briefly state my objections to him. I consider Nixon's presidency to have been more liberal than conservative. In domestic policy, he gave us affirmative action, wage-price controls, and a proposed guaranteed annual income. In foreign affairs he gave us detente with the Evil Empire and "normalized" relations with Red China. He kept conservatives happy by attacking liberals and prosecuting the war in Vietnam for most of his presidency. But Kennedy and Johnson also did the latter. Since, it is unlikely that Nixon really believed in affirmative action and a guaranteed income, my second objection to him is his opportunism, and this is where the comparison to Gore comes in. In fairness, though, Nixon was a complex and ambiguous figure. To date, Gore has not shown himself to be all that complex or ambiguous. In that sense, my comparison can be seen as somewhat unfair to Nixon.

The St. Paul Pioneer Press reports on growing suspicion that an al Qaeda cell is active in the Twin Cities.

Ann Coulter takes on the New York Times. It's another mismatch. Her topic today is the Times' umbrage at Roger Ailes, chairman of Fox News, urging President Bush to strike hard against terrorism. The Times thinks this blew the cover off Fox's pretension to journalistic neutrality. The cat is out of the bag: Fox is on America's side. Somehow this revelation didn't shock people as much as the Times thought it would.

"Vegan animal rights activist" Volkert van der Graaf has confessed to murdering Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn last May, explaining that "he saw Mr. Fortuyn's far-right views as a threat to vulnerable sections of society." Even the prosecutor who announced van der Graaf's confession stated, apparently as a purely factual matter: "[Van der Graaf] was concerned about Fortuyn's prejudiced political views...and the incendiary way [he] presented them...." In Western Europe, anyone who tries to talk honestly about immigration is ipso facto "far right" and therefore disqualified from respectable political participation. Fortuyn, a gay sociologist, was hardly "far right," but he did try to defend the Netherlands' liberal culture against what he saw as an aggressive, intolerant Muslim immigrant culture manifesting no desire to assimilate. I don't want to beat the dead Daschle horse here, but isn't it reasonable to question whether the relentless and monolithic demonization of all those in Western Europe who doubt the wisdom of wide-open immigration policies bears at least some responsibility for Fortuyn's murder? Do you suppose Daschle and his colleagues will express any such concern?

I can't resist one more photo; this is of part of the crowd in Bucharest, cheering President Bush and waving American and Romanian flags.

When Mary Landrieu has to campaign on the basis of her 75 percent support for President Bush, it suggests that Louisiana voters are probably inclining to someone who can do better than a "C" in support of the president on the issues they care about. The Times reporter of course draws no inferences from her statement, but it seems to me a remarkable symptom of what Robert Novak's column earlier this week called "Mary Landrieu's dilemma."

I didn't know when I mentioned Nixon's 1979 visit to Bucharest that Bucharest was President Bush's next stop; he was probably speaking there as I wrote. Here is the Fox News account of President Bush's speech in Bucharest to an adoring crowd in pouring rain earlier today: "Bush welcomes entrance of former Soviet states into NATO." The rain apparently ebbed as Bush stepped to the podium: "As he stepped up to the microphone after a lengthy introduction by Romania President Ion Iliesu, Bush pointed to the sky, saying a rainbow had appeared through the clouds and the rain, he added, 'God is smiling on us.'" Beautiful!

I am one of a growing number of connoisseurs of the New York Times corrections page. This one is a classic:

"The Slough Journal article yesterday, about Princess Anne's guilty plea to charges of having lost control of her dog, which bit two children, misstated the timing of what historians say was the most recent previous criminal conviction of a senior member of the royal family. In that case, Charles I was beheaded in 1649 — after the English Civil War, not on the eve of it."

Well, yes, I suppose the Roundheads had to win the war before they could behead the King. This whole correction is pretty funny--not least the parallel between Princess Anne's misadventure with her dog and the English Civil War--but it does raise, once again, the question whether the Times still employs editors, and if so, do they actually read the stuff they print?

The New York Times covers the Terrell/Landrieu race. The Times admits that Landrieu is "slipping in the polls." The Times notes that "to appeal to Louisiana's relatively conservative voters, Ms. Landrieu has drawn attention to her support for President Bush--she has voted with him 75 percent of the time...." Of course, this poses a basic dilemma when the President will be campaigning for Landrieu's opponent. Landrieu can run only so far away from her often-liberal voting record; the Republicans have put up a terrific website called SomethingAboutMary.net. I think the only way Landrieu can win this race is if Terrell comes across as not ready for prime time, and that doesn't seem to be happening.

The shooting death of the 12-year-old girl is the Star Tribune's major page-one story this morning: "12-year old girl killed by stray bullet in Minneapolis."

The Saudis have not only funded the war against the United States, they are of course the chief funder of the ongoing war against Israel through Hamas. I guess Iran deserves the credit for Hezbollah. We can only hope that our account with them will be settled with both Saudi Arabia and Iran some time soon.

The big news story this morning is Michael Isikoff's article in Newsweek about a money trail leading from the wife of Saudi Arabia's Ambassador to the U.S. to two men who befriended and financially supported two of the Saudi 9/11 hijackers. The Administration has acknowledged that this money trail is being investigated, but has tried to cool the story down. Whether this particular lead pans out or not, there is no question that the Saudis have supported the terrorists, directly and indirectly, for a long time. Many people (including the Trunk) have been frustrated by the Administration's apparent willingness to ignore the Saudis' support for terrorism and treat them as an ally in the war. My own view is that President Bush and his team have in mind an order in which they intend to address the various sources of terrorism, and the Saudis' turn has not yet come. When that time does come, regime change in Saudi Arabia will be a breeze compared to Iraq or Iran. Meanwhile, I see no reason not to take advantage of the Saudis' duplicity and make use of whatever support they give us in the war.

Studies in liberal governance: Also worth a look this morning is the St. Paul Pioneer Press account of the shoot-out that killed a 12-year-old girl in Minneapolis's Powderhorn Park neighborhood: "Girl killed by stray bullet." I find the local acceptance of Minneapolis's gangster invasion and Minneapolis's utterly impotent law enforcement to be shocking. As a one-party city suffering from the kind of deterioration that is inherent in single-party liberal governance, Minneapolis badly needs the help of its former Soviet sister city in resurrecting a multiparty political system.

The new issue of the Weekly Standard is out this morning. Christopher Caldwell's "The Democrats' Abuse Excuse" is this morning's must-read piece. The whole piece is excellent, but here's a representative sample: "Unfortunately, Daschle's remarks probably were spontaneous. They reflected an instinctual defense of the high and the mighty (whom Daschle referred to throughout as 'those of us in public life') from oversight by the voting public, who are cast not just as irrelevant but as a menace to public order. 'What happens when Rush Limbaugh attacks those of us in public life,' Daschle said, 'is that people aren't satisfied just to listen, they want to act because they get emotionally invested.' Gee whiz! Imagine the citizens of a democratic republic getting 'emotionally invested' in the affairs of their country! Imagine voters so uppity that they 'aren't satisfied just to listen,' but actually participate and organize!" (Courtesy of RealClearPolitics.)

Rocket Man, what a great photo. It brings back memories of the enormous splash President Nixon made on his trip to Bucharest in 1970, where he appeared to be more popular than he was in the United States. President Bush would of course receive the kind of heartfelt support he gets in Lithuania just about anywhere in the US too.

I love this photo of President Bush in Lithuania. The Eastern Europeans, unlike those in the West, haven't forgotten what it was like to live under tyranny, and they also haven't forgotten who was on their side while they were struggling to be free. It must be a real boost for an American President to spend time in Eastern Europe. And, as I've said here before, I'm convinced that President Bush intends to do for the Arab world what Ronald Reagan did for Eastern Europe. Someday we may see a picture like this of a future American President in Baghdad or Tehran.

Debka File records the implosion of Israel's Labor Party, long the country's majority party, now doomed to irrelevance as it sinks deeper into a leftism that consists mostly of wishful thinking. Unfortunately for Labor, a large majority of Israelis now fully understand that wishful thinking is not a viable defense policy. Analogies could be drawn, I suppose, to the American political scene.

I noticed that we got some referrals from a blog called PoliPundit, so I checked it out. It's a good new blog by a guy who lives in Washington State, aimed mainly at political junkies. Take a look. PoliPundit says the Democrats in Louisiana are running what sounds like a lame attack-ad against Suzanne Terrell. It claims that as elections commissioner, she bought voting machines from a company that contributed to her campaign. Yawn. Hardly a match for this attack on Landrieu, which PoliPundit linked to. I'm about ready to chalk this one up for Terrell.

Studies in liberal governance: The Minneapolis Police Department has hired a healer. The Minneapolis Star Tribune puts as positive a spin on the story as is possible in "Busy Minneapolis police hire a healer." One reason the Minneapolis police are busy is that they're not doing a very good job apprehending criminals or preventing crime. The city's latest casualty is a 12-year-old girl who was shot and killed by a stray bullet this afternoon while playing indoors with her sister: "12-year-old Minneapolis girl killed by stray bullet." Here's the memorable explanation provided by the city's Chief of Police: "This is just another case of someone who's mad at somebody else getting mad and firing shots." The story fails to note that, fortunately, the department just hired a healer.

Deacon, I suppose it's bad form to pat ourselves on the back, but your evisceration of E.J. Dionne--admittedly, a pretty easy target--was masterful. The Democrats seem hopelessly behind the curve. After two years of believing their own propaganda about Bush being inept, now they are crying foul because he keeps outsmarting them.

The New York Post has by far the most interesting information we've seen on the capture of Abd al-Nashiri, al Qaeda's operations chief in the Persian Gulf region. Apparently he was caught while trying to flee to Malaysia; he is believed to know Osama bin Laden's whereabouts, and the Post reports that a Delta Force unit was on alert to find and kill bin Laden as soon as Nashiri talked. Unfortunately, but hardly surprisingly, Nashiri didn't squeal on his boss. An unidentified U.S. official was quoted as saying, "He has been of some help, but we were unable to get any information about bin Laden's location from him." Maybe the mistake was not letting him get to Malaysia. Their interrogation methods--like the Indonesians', judging from their success in rounding up the Sari Club bombers--are probably more productive than ours.

E.J. Dionne, on behalf of the Democrats, vows "we won't be fooled again." He's referring to how the Democrats acted entirely in good faith on the homeland security issue, only to fall victim to the brilliant and cynical politics of President Bush. You all remember this, don't you?

Dionne's initial argument is that, since President Bush initially doubted that a giant Homeland Security Department was appropriate, it was cynical of him ultimately to come out in favor of such a bureaucracy. Dionne even seems to suggest that Bush did this in order to upstage whistle-blower Coleen Rowley (you remember her -- the one who was about to bring down the presidency by complaining about her FBI bosses). One can certainly argue that establishing a Homeland Security Department was a bad idea (and maybe even a cynical one) on the part of the Democrats. But Dionne apparently doesn't believe this, so it's difficult to understand how he can reasonably complain about Bush compromising with the Democrats on the issue.

Dionne then criticizes Bush for insisting on a bill that enhanced his right to fire incompetent bureaucrats. But Dionne never explains why the president should not have this right. The value of a Homeland Security Department is questionable. But, particularly in light of what we've learned about FBI and INS negligence in connection with events association with September 11, the value of giving the president a freer hand to root out bureaucratic incompetence seems indisputable, unless you're a Democrat upholding the interests of union constituents. The homeland security legislation is better for giving the president this freedom, and Dionne does not argue otherwise.

Dionne concludes by arguing, correctly, that the real homeland security issue is how aggressive we are going to be in dismantling terrorist networks inside the U.S. He wonders why, other than Senator Bob Graham and Rep. David Obey, the Democrats didn't argue that we aren't being aggressive enough in this respect. I could offer some theories about this. For now, let's just say that if the Democrats wish to increase Attorney General Ashcroft's power to find and dismantle terrorist networks in the U.S., then we may see some real bipartisanship. But don't hold your breath.

David Brooks of the Weekly Standard on the success story that is Afghanistan. According to Brooks, behind headlines such as "Daily Life in Kabul Is Struggle for Most," the real story is that Kabul is a rapidly growing, vibrant city full of opportunity. The old problems of inactivity and despair have been replaced by the problems associated with growth and dynamism. Towards the end of Brooks' piece, he discusses Iraq and provides this quote from the head of the Institute for Science and International Security, "We still don't know why [Iraq] wanted nuclear weapons and what they intended to do with them"

For those who have followed the politically-freighted arguments about Israel's capital over the years, one of the corrections in today's New York Times resonates of more than geographic ignorance. The correction reads, in its entirety: "An article yesterday about a man accused of having tried to hijack an El Al plane en route to Istanbul from Tel Aviv on Sunday referred incorrectly to Tel Aviv. It is not the capital of Israel; Jerusalem is."

More on Nigeria: The BBC is reporting that rioting, purportedly linked to the Miss World pageant to be held in that country, has spread to the capital city of Abuja. The rioting began when Muslim youths emerged from Friday prayers at their mosques in Abuja and, "armed with sticks, daggers and knives, set fire to vehicles and attacked anyone they suspected of being Christian." Apparently they were inspired by Islam's peaceful message.

Beth Henary of the Weekly Standard reports on more lawless conduct by U.S. Civil Rights Commission Chairwomen Mary Francis Berry. This cranky leftist from the old school refused to seat President Bush's nominee to the Commission until a Supreme Court ruling forced her to. Now she has caused to be issued a draft Commission report without having consulted four of the eight Commission members. The report concerns equal opportunity in higher education. Abigail Thernstrom, a distinguished scholar in the field and one of the unconsulted Commissioners, finds that the report contains major factual errors intended to support its pro-affirmative action agenda. This story shows why the Civil Rights Commission has not been taken seriously for years.

Ms. Berry has a place in the intellectual history of my family. In 1996, one of my daughters had to do her annual project for Black History month, this time on a leading contemporary African-American. Her teacher had suggested Berry. Horrified, and thinking much more quickly than I normally do, I pointed out that it would be much easier to find material on Alan Keyes, who was running for president at the time. Having thus made the sale to my daughter, I became concerned that her teacher might not be receptive to a project about Keyes. In the end, though, my daughter brought in a tape of a Keyes speech on C-SPAN and the teacher, enormously entertained, gave her an "A." Ever since, we rarely miss a chance to see Keyes on television in our house.

Victor Davis Hanson on what we can expect from Saddam Hussein this time in a war, and how we can deal with it.

For comic relief, this just in from the University of Wisconsin's Daily Cardinal: "UW halts LGBT, minority event."

Don't miss John Podhoretz's column in the New York Post this morning: "For their next pathetic ploy..." Rocket Man will especially appreciate Podhoretz's fine tribute to the soon-to-be senate minority leader: "Americans know that what they have seen since 9/11 has been a stunning elevation of American political discourse and a return to seriousness in American politics. But Daschle [has] refused to climb out of the sandbox and become a fully functioning political adult during a time requiring the utmost seriousness from America's politicians."

In his own way, Thomas Sowell also pays the soon-to be senate minority leader tribute in his excellent column this morning: "Who is promoting violence?" (Courtesy of our friends at RealClearPolitics.) Sowell adds much resonant historical context, most of it recent. But this really hits home: "Stripped of control of every branch of the federal government, the Democrats have nothing left to offer anyone before the next election, except accusations and scare tactics. Back in 1933, Franklin D. Roosevelt said: 'The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.' Today, Democrats like Tom Daschle have nothing to offer but fear itself."

The Washington Times carries Bob Tyrell's appreciation of Robert Bartley's valedictory that we posted yesterday: "Credo that overcame." Both Bartley's career and his speech deserve greater consideration than we gave it yesterday, and Tyrell makes a fine contribution with this column.

By contrast, Diana West's column makes painful reading. She more or less picks up from the point Daniel Pipes left us at in his Wednesday New York Post column, imploring us to acquaint ourselves with the true face of those who want to destroy us: "Bush takes up Islam's pompom."

It apparently took Bob Woodward's book to make Washington Post columnist David Ignatius pay tribute to President Bush, but pay tribute he does this morning in his column "Bush the resolute." Great quote: "Bush's record as a wartime leader thus far bears comparison to these giants of American history [Lincoln, Roosevelt, JFK, and LBJ--hey, this is the WaPo!]."

And Charles Krauthammer, great as always, considers the events occurring before his eyes in "The bold road to NATO expansion."

It is difficult to assimilate the human details involved in the barbarous two-year-old war being conducted against Israel and its citizens. The Washington Post has an unusal (for a mainstream American newspaper) account that attempts to bring home some of the reality of what is occurring. The story looks like it runs on page one this morning: "Everything started to burn." Warning: this one hurts.

Another significant victory: Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, al Qaeda's chief of operations in the Persian Gulf, has been captured in an unidentified country and is now in U.S. custody. He is apparently the senior al Qaeda member whom authorities said they had captured last week; at that time, he was not identified. al-Nashiri is said to be talking.

This is a very sad story; you've probably heard about it. The Miss World contest is being held in Nigeria. Nigeria is largely Muslim, and various clerics have denounced the pageant on the ground that it promotes promiscuity. A local newspaper ran a responsive editorial saying "What would Muhammad think? In all honesty, he would probably have chosen a wife from among them [the contestants]." This article was the occasion for Muslim riots in which more than 50 people have been murdered so far. Here is the Associated Press story. The account is dismally familiar, as Africans once again are shooting, stabbing, and burning each other alive. Threatened with mass murder, the newspaper that wrote the offending column has apologized and begged for mercy. Here is its attempt to take back its "slander" against the Prophet. It is titled: "An Apology to All Muslims". Those readers who are familiar with the history of Communism will recognize the style of this apologia and can imagine how much good it will do. For now, it is hard to see any reason for optimism about this particular corner of Africa. Below, just for the record, is a photo of some of the contestants whose participation in the pageant precipitated the homicidal reaction detailed above.

The increasingly pathetic Tom Daschle, apparently trying to hang on to his job a little longer, has spent the last two days blasting Rush Limbaugh and other radio talk show hosts for the "fact" that he and other liberal leaders are supposedly receiving increasing numbers of threats. We have no data at all on threats made against politicians of either party--if someone threatens Norm Coleman, is Garrison Keillor to blame? If, God forbid, President Bush were to be assassinated, would Maureen Dowd and Paul Krugman be prosecuted? There are no data here to talk about. But it is fair to say that Rush Limbaugh presents a more lucid, rational, balanced take on the news every day than, for example, the New York Times. And the Times is far more imbued with hate. Here is Rush's response to Daschle's outrageous attack. The fact is that talk radio attracts a high-quality, well-educated audience, and engages in political discussion far above what we generally see in our daily newspapers. Our friend Hugh Hewitt is just one of a number of radio hosts whose intellectual attainments leave Daschle and his ilk in the shade. Once again, the Democrats' strategy is painfully obvious: if you can't beat them, demonize them and disqualify them from public discourse. Next in line after talk radio hosts are bloggers.

It is interesting to see how other countries deal with security issues. Here, Australia grapples with the question whether Muslim women should be barred from wearing the chador on the ground that it could be used to conceal weapons.

Indonesian police continue to track down the Bali bombers. This account is from the Sydney Morning Herald. It appears that the key man in the plot is now under arrest.

Reader Greg Nesmith reports from Baton Rouge that Democrat Mary Landrieu "is in big trouble and everyone knows it." Greg tells us that "Vice President Cheney's visits were well-received and got a lot of publicity here; meanwhile, there is zero excitement in the Landrieu camp. Imagine what will happen when the President himself comes to town." Other points from Greg: (1) after the "Meet the Press" debate, Republican Terrell is viewed as having held her own with Landrieu and people can now see her in the Senate seat, (2) Landrieu is going to be hurt by the abortion issue in conservative, Catholic Louisiana, (3) the Landrieu camp talked about "moving left" but in reality, she is trying to appear more conservative, but (4) it doesn't seem to be working. Landrieu was one of three Democrats to vote with President Bush on homeland security, but then it came out, through Rush Limbaugh, that she "held" her vote until after Bush had his majority. Greg concludes: "Of course, we have a long way to go, but unless someone can prove Terrell was a former Klan member, Landrieu is in big trouble."

Michael Ledeen on how the New York Times is misreporting the Iranian demonstrations. It portrays the demonstrations as aimed at bolstering the elected government in its alleged struggle with the religious establishment. Actually, according to Ledeen, the demonstrators are calling for an end to the Islamic republic, with chants like "Death to the Taliban, in Kabul and Tehran." Ledeen also criticizes Colin Powell and his State Department for their tepid response to Iran's "bubbling democratric desire." Ledeen concludes that, if we support the Iranian people properly, Iran can be liberated without risking the lives of Americans. And "a free Iran will change the world."

Former Claremonter Peter Schramm of No Left Turns is rapidly becoming my favorite blogger. His most recent blog of substance is titled "Churchill as War Criminal." The whole thing is worth reading, but the conclusion is special. The conclusion reads as follows: "I saw on the news this morning Bush sitting with Blair at the NATO meeting holding a news conference, and the camera took in the whole man. Bush was wearing his cowboy boots! Cowboy boots in the heart of Europe! What a good man Bush is!"

As a foundering graduate student of unsettled convictions in 1974, about to drop out of school just after I had enrolled, I picked up a Wall Street Journal sitting at the lunch counter of a New Haven restaurant. It was the first time I'd ever read the paper. In it was one of the paper's classic "reported" editorials, this one on an arms-control related subject; the editorial was thoughtful, dramatic, and compelling. In retrospect I can see the editorial must have been written by its then-new editorial page editor, Robert Bartley.

I have been a faithful reader of the Journal editorial page ever since, and over time it has provided both the best and most economical education I have received outside the classroom of Dartmouth's Professor Jeffrey Hart. Reading Bartley's account of his 30-year tenure as editor of the Journal yesterday, I realized how much the country is indebted to his stewardship of the paper's vital editorial page and how much of a difference even one unlikely person with the right ideas and gifts can make. The published version of Bartley's summing-up is an excerpt from his valedictory address in New York on Tuesday night: "Thirty Years of Progress--Mostly." Don't miss it!

Not for the faint of heart: Someone with expertise in assessing "tipping points" should be asked to consider when Israel will reach its. According to an astounding Jerusalem Post article posted on the National Review Online Web site, Israel has sustained more than 15,000 terrorist attacks since the inception of the second so-called Intifada or pogrom in September 2000. The article is "15,000 and counting" by Michael Freund.

American/Israeli historian Michael Oren, resident of Jerusalem, father of three kids, author of the book of the year--Six Days of War--spoke in St. Paul on Tuesday this week. He speculated that the one factor that might push Israel toward an American-style resolution of its West Bank problem was a single mega-terrorist attack, of which Israel has prevented several; the odds of their success in continuing to do so are necessarily diminishing. He observed that to this point Israel has exercised superhuman restraint--a point confirmed in spades by this Jerusalem Post article. He added a point that I have often thought but never seen expressed--that if an American city or state had sustained the kind of terroritst attacks Israel has withstood for the past two years, the West Bank would have been flattened long ago.

Reader Cory Skluzak tells us that Republican Bob Beauprez is the winner in Colorado's 7th Congressional District. As noted in this story from the Rocky Mountain News, Beauprez defeated his Democratic rival by 122 votes. Beauprez's lead was reduced by more than 200 votes after the "provisional" votes were tallied. A Denver judge ordered that all provisional votes be counted. The 122-vote margin triggers an automatic recount.

Rocket Man's brother has written me regarding the Stephen Schwartz post on Wahhabism. He notes that, if Schwartz is correct that Wahhabism is a truly distinctive Islamic voice behind much of the terrorism, then it should be possible to isolate and challenge it. In this regard, the Rocket Prof wonders whether we should be moving against Iraq. Although not wishing to be confused with the Democrats, he suggests that our focus should be on the Saudis and on the radical Muslim idelology that is at the root of the current plague of terrorism. He acknowledges that Saddam poses a real danger, but also considers him an anomaly -- "essentially a secular megalomaniac with an insatiable will to power."

It seems to me that, even if Schwartz is correct, moving against Saddam makes sense. First, in my view, there would be a strong case for toppling Saddam even if there were no Islamist terrorism, given the independant threat that Saddam poses, or will soon pose, with his weapons of mass destruction. Second, although Saddam can be viewed as a secular anomaly in the terrorism racket, this provides no assurance that he will not work with non-secular terrorists, including those of Wahhabist orientation. Indeed, there seems to be good evidence that such cooperation has occurred in the past and continues today. As President Bush has said, any cooperation between the world's most dangerous terrorists and the world's most dangerous state poses an unacceptable risk to our security. Third, Schwartz's prescription for dealing with the Saudis consists of making various demands of them. The overthrow of Saddam would likely give us more leverage with the Saudis and more influence in the region as a whole. Thus, we would be in a better position to reduce Wahhabi power and influence.

Thanks for pointing me to the Bret Stephens piece on Bartley, Trunk. At the other end of the spectrum (not politically but in all other respects) is Robert Novak. Trunk, you are correct that Novak is an almost completely worthless columnist. He does have some excellent sources. The problem (or at least part of it) is that he uncritically will print untrue statements that his sources supply him to advance their interests. Careers have been injured by this practice. In short, one cannot have confidence in the truth of what appears in a Novak column.

Deacon wouldn't want you to miss Bret Stephens's latest Jerusalem Post column: "Bartley's Journal."

George Will on Al Gore's dishonest attempt to "remake" history in connection with the 2000 Florida vote count. Will also explains why the seven Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court who did not vote as Gore wished were "restraining the unconstitutional activism of Florida's Supreme Court" and thus engaging in "strict construction of the Constitution, not judicial activism."

Blogger Eugene Volokh is a professor of law at UCLA and a leading scholar in the area of free speech. In this National Review Online piece, he offers some very clear thinking about college speech codes.

Here is National Review Online's interview with Stephen Schwartz, an expert on Wahhabism, the extremist Islamic movement that constitutes the main source of Islamic violence in the world today. Schwartz notes that Wahhabism is completely subsidized by the Saudi regime, using oil income. According to Schwartz, Saddam Hussein "has used Wahhabism to give his regime an Islamic cover, but Wahhabism is deeply unpopular in Iraq" as it is in Turkey, Iran, and the Balkans. Unfortunately, says Schwartz, the United States is the only country outside of Saudi Arabia where the Islamic establishment is under Wahhabi control. Eighty percent of American mosques are Wahhabi-influenced. This does not mean that 80 percent of the people who attend mosques in the U.S. are Wahhabis, but Schwartz says that Wahhabi agents have sought to impose their ideology on all attendees in the mosques they control, and many "official" Islamic organizataions in the U.S. are Wahhabi fronts.

Robert Novak has become an almost completely worthless columnist, so befuddled by his own prejudices that he can't see what's in front of his eyes. In the waning days of the Minnesota senate race he wrote a column on the alleged Minnesota DFL (Democratic) party dissing of Minnesota Supreme Court Justice (ex-Minnesota Viking, NFL Hall of Famer, Trunk law school classmate) Alan Page that was utterly careless if not fabricated. But his column this morning on the Louisiana senate race is excellent, and well worth a look: "Mary Landrieu's dilemma."

More on Minnesota's Angry Humorist: This morning's Minneapolis Star Tribune has an interesting account of the fallout at Minnesota Public Radio from the unfunny one's Salon columns as well as yesterday's Pioneer Press columns: "Keillor takes heat over columns attacking Coleman."

Robert Samuelson on "Asbestos Fraud". This is the story of "how the thirst for profits has led a small group of trial lawyers to erode the rights of legitimate victims while driving dozens of companies into bankruptcy and corrupting the court system." Samuelson calls on Congress "to end this lavish welfare program for lawyers" by among other measures, preempting state law on asbestos, setting strict medical standards for damages, and capping lawyers' fees.

Rachel DiCarlo of the Weekly Standard argues that Libertarian candidates cost Republicans a number of victories in addition to the Senate race in South Dakota. As Rocket Man noted over the weekend when discussing the South Dakota race, these kinds of claims can be difficult to assess. For example, one of DiCarlo's examples is Wisconsin where the Republican gubernatorial candidate lost by 68,000 votes. Although the Libertarian candidate captured about three times that number of votes, it's awfully speculative to say that, absent his presence, enough of these voters would have supported the Republican to have made the difference. This is particularly true if, as DiCarlo suggests, Libertarian candidates are running to the "left" of Republicans, differing on social issues such as gay rights and drug legalization, and supporting an isolationist foreign policy. Nonetheless, DiCarlo has identified a real probem for Republicans.

Hugh Hewitt commends Bill Sammon's inside look at the Bush administration's response to 9/11 in his WorldNetDaily column today: "The president's wild ride." Hugh doesn't compare Sammon's account to Woodward's, but I have little question that Sammon's is the one to go with.

Our loyal reader Gene Allen responds to my blog comparaing Al Gore to Nixon by suggesting that Gore is "stuck in a sort of Goundhog day loop, only when Gore wakes up it's always Halloween." Gene notes that Gore's "favorite costume theme appears to be former presidents." During one of the debates with Bush, Gore "showed up looking, walking, talking, and trying to act like Ronald Reagan." And (although Gene doesn't mention this) Gore certainly has tried to impersonate Clinton at times. Now he's acting like Nixon. Gene concludes that "somebody should give this guy some wooden teeth."

The scary thing about my analogy to Nixon, of course, is that Nixon returned from the dead (like Freddie Kreuger, to stay with the Halloween theme) to become president. And no one should rule out the possibility that Gore will also accomplish this. On the other hand, Nixon knew he could wait eight years. Thus, he sat out the 1964 election, which he surely would have lost badly to Lyndon Johnson, thus ending his career. Gore hears Ms. Clinton's footsteps and has concluded, I believe, that he must run in 2004. Although there are certainly scenarios under which Gore could win in 2004, right now it seems like a tall order.

More on Minnesota's Angry Humorist: Chuck Chalberg is a history teacher at a community college in the Twin Cities. The Pioneer Press carries his take on the unfunny one's Salon columns this morning, and it is worth reading. He manages to direct the appropriate ridicule in the right direction in the piece: "Garrison may have burned a few." For comparitive purposes the Pioneer Press runs a condensed version of the unfunny one's ravings alongside: "On Norm."

D.J. Tice's weekly PP column also takes the bait. As is his style, Doug takes the long view and addresses the larger political context in which to situate the unfunny one's ravings: "Democrat Majority died from old, Vietnam-era wounds." Doug is really feeling it in this piece, and I urge you to take a look. Great quote: "There are, of course, a dozen other [non-security related] issues on which Democrats are hobbled by the '60s mindset, which hasn't digested a really new idea since the Beatles broke up. The basic malady may be the pseudo-religious, political fundamentalism of many Woodstock-era faithful, which produces (now as decades ago) a breathtaking self-righteousness and a stunning lack of self-awareness." Somebody say amen!

Mark Riebling in National Review Online delivers a frightening message, especially for those who live in the New York and Washington D.C. areas. Riebling finds Al Qaeda's recent threat against these two cities credible and thinks that our government may not be taking the threat seriously enough.

Michael Kelly does his usual excellent job in this piece about the "new" Al Gore. Gore is starting to remind me of Richard Nixon. Nixon was also a defeated ex-Vice President who thought he had been robbed of the presidency. He too reinvented himself as "new" and moved away from the center of his party. He even wrote a book, as Gore has done (he called it "Six Crises," if I recall correctly, and one reporter suggested that he should have issued it in loose-leaf notebook form so he could add to it as he went along). But Nixon, perhaps in keeping with his era, did a better job of hiding the extent to which he was scarred (except for during his famous concession speech after the California governor's race in 1962) and he was able to exercise more self-discipline than Gore appears able to muster.

Washington Times editorial page editor Tony Blankley is one guy who knows how to read a Bob Woodward book. His column this morning on Woodward's latest (per the three excerpts that ran in the Washington Post this week) seems to me definitive: "Woodward's war heroes."

Llike Ha'aretz, Gil Hoffman of the Jerusalem Post sees Amram Mitzna, the Israeli Labor Party's new leader, as a sure loser in the upcoming election. He also sees Mitzna's selection as condemning Labor to the sidelines for the foreseeable future, instead of participating in a unity government as Labor has since Ariel Sharon's election. Mizna proposes unilaterally pulling Israeli troops out of the Gaza Strip and was the only Labor candidate who said he would negotiate with Arafat. He defeated his two main Labor Party rivals with a little over 50 percent of the vote.

Mohammad Parvin is the head of a group called Mission for Establishing Human Rights in Iran. Here he describes how leading U.S. scholars turn a blind eye to human rights abuses in Iran in order to preserve access to Iranian visas. The worst, according to Parvin, is Gary Sick, famous for his October surprise conspiracy theory in the early Reagan years. Sick serves on the board of the American Iranian Council, an outfit funded largely by oil companies that calls for unconditional restoration of diplomatic and business relations between the U.S. and the Iranian dictatorship. Prominent journalists have made the same sort of corrupt bargain as the professors, says Parvin. For example, he notes that Robin Wright of the Los Angeles Times, who "parrots official rhetoric labeling Khatemi the leading reformist in Iran, has unfettered access," while the few who report critically from Teheren are expelled.

Blogosphere belle Asparagirl responds vigorously, shall we say, to an Arab sympathizer who thinks her site isn't balanced enough.

We have witnessed many misuses of religion to advance political ends, but this is one of the most pathetic: "What would Jesus drive?" A fuel-efficient subcompact, of course. Preferably a Yugo. This is part of the left-wing attack on SUVs, which I guess we can understand (and condemn) as a political matter. But how Jesus enters into it is a mystery. The sad fact about this campaign, which will pay for television advertising in Iowa, North Carolina, Indiana and Missouri, is that it is backed by "mainstream" religious groups, like the National Council of Churches and the Coalition on the Environment and Jewish Life. The rationale underlying this campaign is the totalitarian canard that the personal is the political: "Economic issues are moral issues. There really isn't a decision in your life that isn't a moral choice," says the sponsor of the television campaign. Jesus himself, of course, dealt with the "personal is political" theory long ago, by taking precisely the opposite position: "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and render unto God what is God's." He never showed a lot of interest in gas mileage.

Trunk, they say you can always tell a Harvard man. But you can't tell him much.

Here's the take of Ha'aretz on the Israeli Labor Party's election of dovish Amram Mitzna as its candidate for prime minister. The article makes it plain that Mitzna faces enormous difficulties in the upcoming election against (probably) Ariel Sharon. This would have been true of any Labor Party nominee. But, from the outside, Mitzna seems even harder than his rivals to elect. Moreover, a different nominee would have been a better bet to join a unity government after defeat, as Benjamin Ben-Eliezer, the party leader defeated by Mitzna, did. According to Ha'aretz, Mitzna seems an unlikely partner in a Sharon government, although apparently he is already beginning to soften his objections to participating in such a unity government.

More on Minnesota's Angry Humorist: I had missed Brian Lambert's original column on the unfunny one last Saturday in the St. Paul Pioneer Press, "Now we know what Keillor reallly thinks, but why?" (Courtesy of OpinionJournal's Best of the Web Today.) In this column Lambert notes that the unfunny one had submitted a variant of his original Salon piece to the Pioneer Press before the election but that it had been rejected by editorial page editor Steve Dornfeld.

For Non-Harvard Alums Only

For Non-Harvard Alums Only: Is it just me, or does Rocket Man seem a little touchy about Harvard Law School? I've only walked through the Yard a few times, but I have noticed the folks there are a little resistant to criticism.

Another pro-free speech, pro-American demonstration by thousands of Iranian students. One of the speakers said, "We demand unconditional release of Mr. Aghajari [professor threatened with execution for 'apostasy'] but demand freedom of speech and opinion for everyone and forever."

One of the clearest voices on criminal law issues, and the death penalty in particular, belongs to my good friend Bill Otis, formerly of the Justice Department and now an adjunct professor of law at George Mason University. Here, in the New York Times online death penalty forum, he exposes the problems with the death penalty moratorium movement. You'll probably want to skip the noise at the beginning of the link and scroll down a bit to the 8:44 a.m. Nov. 13 post for Bill's six point analysis.

Samizdata reminds us that today is National Ammo Day. For more information, check out the link. The basic idea is to "Celebrate the Second Amendment by buying an extra 100 rounds of ammunition on November 19th." Despite growing up in South Dakota, I've never been much of a gun person. I do remember, however, a hand-lettered sign that stood for many years next to the highway on the way into my home town, advertising a local store. It said: "Kones Korner." And then, underneath: "Beer. Guns. Ammo." South Dakota's version of one-stop shopping, circa 1962. Contemporary legal scholarship is becoming much more friendly toward gun rights than has been the case for for many years, and empirical data clearly show the value of firearms in deterring crime. I confess, however, that my own appreciation of gun rights arises mainly from how much they annoy liberals.

One of the great things about Power Line is the emails we get from readers. We try to reply to as many as we can, and we hope you'll keep sending in your comments. We have just gotten in several extremely interesting emails, one of which relates to the current political situation in South Dakota. Our reader, who is very well connected in South Dakota politics, says that jockeying for the 2004 Senate race is already underway. John Thune, he says, is not licking his wounds, but is actively planning for the future, in "full combat mode." He has been offered a high position in the Administration but will probably decline it, preferring to make some money by lobbying for a couple of years, then try for Daschle's Senate seat whether Daschle retires or not. His competition for the nomination will, of course, be Bill Janklow. Janklow has been the most popular politician in South Dakota for twenty years, but our reader nevertheless thinks Thune can beat him for the nomination. He believes President Bush will support Thune, not only out of loyalty--Thune gave up his House seat to run against Tim Johnson, rather than for Governor, at the request of the White House--but also because Thune is viewed as a more loyal and reliable Republican. He is also, of course, much younger. Janklow's personal and political alliance with Tom Daschle served him well when he was Governor, but will be a liability (in Republican circles, anyway) when he runs for Daschle's seat. And, while Janklow is very able and has been tremendously popular, he also has the highest negatives of any South Dakota politician. Can Thune win if Daschle runs for re-election? I think so. Daschle's strength has been his ability to bring home the bacon for South Dakotans. As Minority Leader, that ability will be much diminished. He will increasingly be seen as a querulous and ineffective obstructor of President Bush's policies, which are popular in South Dakota. And in two years, the President will be on the ballot.

Except for putting us on the spot about what the heck we're doing during the work day, Joshua Sharf is fast becoming our favorite correspondent. His latest message picks up where Rocket Man left off below:

"As for Difficult Conversations, I have a copy of the book, and see where the notion could be very useful in a business environment. It's not just about negotiation, but about how to talk about subjects that we would rather avoid, and talk about them constructively. Criticizing an employee, handling a conflict between work and social relationships, etc. Businessmen and lawyers need these skills. Incoming students are frequently unprepared to talk about real-life work examples, since they don't know the basic ethical and legal constraints involved. So it makes sense to apply the skill to a common social problem the students have probably already encountered.

"The problem seems to be, as always, in the underlying assumptions of the cases involved. 'How to break up with your boyfriend' is already a little loaded. Why not girlfriend instead? But more importantly, we all know what's coming next: 'How to confront a racist,' 'How to tell your parents you're gay,' 'How to tell your company you're about to whistleblow on their enviro-racist policies.' 'How to defend yourself against unfair charges of workplace bias' probably does not make the list."

Thanks to National Review Online for linking to the Wall Street Journal editorialist Jason Riley's wonderful column today putting out the call for James Bond to go after Osama bin Laden. The column is "Stopping evildoers: James Bond can where others fail."

Speaking of constitutional law, here is Stuart Taylor's take in the National Journal on upcoming Supreme Court developments. Taylor admits that the scenarios he sets forth for retirements and nominations constitute speculation based on grapevine gossip, not inside information. Let's hope so, because many of his scenarios are not happy ones. For example, if Chief Justice Rehnquist retires, the open spot should go to a strong conservative such as Harvie Wilkinson or Michael Luttig of the Fourth Circuit where I sometimes practice. Edith Jones would also be a good pick, but not for the sake of nominating a woman. In no way would Jones be viewed as a plus by female swing voters. Bush should not pick Alberto Gonzalez to replace Rehnquist because his record as a judge in Texas was anything but conservative. Like Tayor, I have no knowledge as to what President Bush is likely to do. But he does seem to learn from his father's mistakes. And one of his father's biggest mistakes was the nomination of Justice Souter.

Nice post on Harvard Law School, Rocket Man. If I recall correctly, Professor Kennedy was a visiting prof at Stanford Law School some years after I graduated. His course on constitutional law was so bad that, due to student demand, the late John Kaplan -- a criminal law and evidence professor and an old-fashioned liberal, at least in my day -- courageously set up an unofficial constitutional law course so that those who wanted to learn something about the constitution would have the opportunity to do so. This, of course, led to charges of racism and whatever else.

I've done a little follow-up research on Dorothy Rabinowitz' piece on political correctness at Harvard Law School. On the whole, this appears to be a pretty typical example of the dialectic that has played out at countless universities across the country. First, someone says or does something that is arguably offensive; here, a student used "Nigs" as a shorthand term in his notes on a discussion of a case. This became an issue because his notes were posted on some kind of internal web site. Second, an organized victims' grievance group--here, the Black Law Students' Association--purports to be shocked at the awfulness of it all, and says the school's administration is responsible because it hasn't done enough to indoctrinate students or limit their speech rights. And third--here is the critical step--the administration responds in the only way it knows how, by appointing a committee (stocked with members of the complaining group) to assess ways of enhancing diversity, etc., at the school. This article in the Boston Globe sheds additional light on the controversy. On the whole, the Law School has been somewhat less craven than the average administration, and its faculty includes more vigorous defenders of free speech than is usually the case. Note in particular the role played by Alan Dershowitz. And, while the newly-formed Committee on Healthy Diversity has announced that it intends to draft a speech code, Dean Robert Clark has already said that he would be very reluctant to actually implement such a code.

Ms. Rabinowitz' article focuses largely on the Law School's new requirement that incoming students attend a session on how to have "difficult conversations." She does not note that this isn't quite as much out of the blue as it may seem; for a number of years, a group at the Law School called the Harvard Negotiation Project has taught courses and published books and articles on various aspects of negotiation. They have written a book called "Difficult Conversations," which is described on the Law School's website as "a national bestseller now available in more than 15 languages." So it was relatively natural for the Law School to turn to its own faculty's work product, which might not be quite as goofy as it sounds. Of course, whether these "difficult conversations" sessions serve any real educational purpose is highly doubtful; the Globe's article concludes by quoting a student who noted that: "At the first session of one workshop, the conversation dealt with how to break up with your boyfriend."

The Globe article also clarifies one fact that is puzzling in Ms. Rabinowitz' account. She refers to a second controversy arising out of a professor's statement in class that "Marxists, feminists and blacks had contributed nothing to tort law," which on its face is odd. The Globe quotes the professor, much more plausibly, as saying that "feminism, Marxism and black studies" have contributed nothing to tort law. As so clarified, the statement is true.

Having said what I can in defense of the Law School, it is obvious that it is a far different place from what I experienced in the early 1970's. At that time the atmosphere was not unlike a Marine boot camp. Students were expected to be able to make and defend arguments and to stand up to often-withering cross-examination by professors. This was based on the idea--which now seems almost quaint--that such training would stand them in good stead once they got out into the real, dog-eat-dog legal world. Sensitivity to our feelings was not something that we expected, nor was it something our professors delivered. And, in that faraway time, I don't recall that professors treated black students much differently from white students.

The aspect of this controversy that I find most troubling is the treatment of Professor Charles Nesson--a young Turk when I was a student, now a senior statesman. During the flap over an allegedly offensive email that followed the "Nigs" episode, Professor Nesson suggested a mock trial of the offending student with himself acting as defense counsel. This suggestion was considered so far beyond the pale that Professor Nesson has been relieved of his first-year teaching duties. Such an outcome is incompatible not only with free speech, but with the most elementary understanding of the role of a lawyer in an adversarial system of justice.

Oh, one more thing--the professor who has sided most vociferously with the anti-free speech forces is Randall Kennedy, a leftist whose latest book is titled: "Nigger: The Strange History of a Troublesome Word."

Clifford Orwin is a poltical science professor at the University of Toronto and a very smart guy. Like Mark Steyn, he has a regular column in Canada's National Post newspaper, and we will have to add him to our roster of regulars. His most recent column is "Reading the fine print in Osama's tape." (Thanks to Bruce Sanborn for the tip.)

HonestReporting.com also blows the whistle on the leftists at "Reporters Without Borders". This group has ranked Israel number 92 in the world in its "free press" index. Thus, Israel trails Lebanan (at 56) and the Palestinian Authority (at 82). The borderless reporters present these rankings even though Lebanon recently prosecuted a reporter for attending a conference in Washington D.C. where an Israeli offical was present, according to HonestReporting. And the PA has a record of violence towards journalists that even the bogus index acknowledges. Such is the mentality of some reporters who help shape the "world opinion" that Colin Powell and most Democrats believe we must obtain the approval of before we proceed to defend our security interests. Indeed, these reporters and their pals at the Associated Press probably help shape the opinions of some Democrats themselves.

The man had an alternative defense too, Trunk: he's a "product of the 1960s and '70s counterculture." Other products of that counterculture may be in control at the Associated Press. Here, HonestReporting.com calls our attention to AP's spin on the latest massacre in Hebron on the West Bank. AP informs us that the Muslims of Hebron are among the most devout and the Jewish settlers among the most radical. A stronger case could be made for the reverse proposition. The history of fanaticism among the devout Muslims of Hebron goes back to at least the 1930s when they slaughtered scores of Jews. And while it is radical, in a sense, for Jews to re-settle in such a hate-filled environment, Hebron is Judaism's second most holy city because the Jewish patriarchs, including Abraham, are buried there.

We have studiously ignored this story until now, and promise to do so again in the future. But how many guys can say this? "Man says sex partner's death was just a 'terrible accident.'"

More on Minnesota's Angry Humorist: From the unfunny one's hometown newspaper, Brian Lambert weighs in with "Supporters defend Keillor's columns on Coleman." Mark Brian Lambert down as a supporter.

The Wall Street Journal's OpinionJournal Web site has now posted Dorothy Rabinowitz's long piece on the Orwellian forces in play at Harvard Law School: "Difficult conversations."

Our friends at RealClearPolitics have identified several columns I would have missed but for them. One supplements the Pipes column below, Frank Gaffney's chilling "Lurking in the Jayna Davis files."

Two post-election recaps are also worth a look: Morton Kondracke's "Democrats lost economy issue on election day," and Ronald Brownstein's "Replay of Reagan-era voting patterns is not good news for Democrats."

Rocket Man, a reader writes to observe that Guy Hunt was Alabama's first Republican governor since Reconstruction, and another Republican followed him. We can neverthless crank up our favorite song of this election season, "Another one bites the dust" (lyrics and music via RealOnePlayer). I believe that in Louisiana, however, President Bush is aiming to make some more history by helping elect the first Republican senator in that state since Reconstruction.

From Dick Cheney's lips...well, you know the rest: "I am confident Louisiana will elect Suzie Terrell to the United States Senate." Reading the tea leaves in the Washington Times account of the vice president's appearance at a fundraiser for Ms. Terrell in Louisiana yesterday, I believe the White House must have Landrieu's seat in the leaning-R column: "Cheney appears at fundraiser for Louisiana hopeful." The Times editorial on the race is also worth a look: "Showdown in Louisiana."

Daniel Pipes's weekly New York Post column this morning is excellent--"Know thy terrorists." And the Post's editorial--"Mary Berry's failed coup"--should be added to Deacon's lengthening list of exhibits in support of the observation that liberals lie, cheat, and steal to achieve their objectives.

Here is Steve Sailer's post-mortem on California's gubernatorial election. His analysis is optimistic for conservatives; I had lost track of the fact that Bill Simon, despite the many problems with his campaign, lost only 47%-42%. Sailer points out that the much-vaunted Hispanic vote is only 10% in California, and argues that Republicans can win in California the same way they did in many other states in 2002--by motivating, dominating and turning out the white vote.

One more narrow win in the GOP column, as Alabama's incumbent governor, Democrat Don Siegelman, concedes to his Republican challenger, Bob Riley, who will be Alabama's first Republican governor since Reconstruction.

This piece by Caroline Glick of the Jerusalem Post, is called "Terrorists, Liberals, and the EU." It covers a sickening array of developments in Egypt, the European Union, on American college campuses, and within Israel. For example, according to Glick, Cairo hosted this week's Palestinian terror conference between Fatah and Hamas. The European Union sponsored the conference. The EU's stated role was to facilitate dialogue as part of its ongoing effort to stop terrorism. Glick reports that, in furtherance of this goal, the EU recently held talks with Muhammed Naifa, mastermind of several terrorist attacks, in an effort to persuade him to limit Fatah terror attacks to Judea, Samaria, and Gaza. This is the kind of thinking that constitutes the "world opinion" that Colin Powell and most Democrats don't wish to proceed without. Glick goes on to show that the American campus left and Israel's own messianic left are as treacherously irresponsible as the EU when it comes to Palestinian terrorism. This column is not for the faint of heart.

More on Minnesota'a Angry Humorist: The Claremont Institute has now posted Bruce Sanborn's take on the unfunny one's most recent Salon rantings. Here in printer-friendly version we proudly present "Sing goddess of the wrath of Garrison."

David Rosenbaum, in the New York Times, explains why the Democrats may not be able to use filibusters to block much of the Republican agenda in the Senate.

Real Clear Politics is reporting that a Republican poll in Louisiana has Suzanne Terrell up eight points over Mary Landrieu.

Reacting to Woodward's book Bush at War, James Robbins of National Review Online points out that Woodward's "revelation" that the U.S. bribed Afghan warlords is not news and Woodward's suggestion that these bribes won the war is not true.

For some reason, the British newspapers publish more information on the war than the American newspapers. This was true during the Afghanistan conflict, and is likely to be true again in the event of war in Iraq. Yesterday the U.K. Observer published an interesting and optimistic assessment of likely Allied tactics should war occur in Iraq. The article is titled, "Surrender or Die, Allies Warn Saddam's Soldiers." Of course, as the article itself notes, the many leaks of Allied war plans are intended largely to demoralize Saddam's generals and convince them to overthrow Saddam rather than fight.

John Miller, in National Review Online, says that the Democrats are making a partisan issue out of the fact that Osama bin Laden is apparently alive and still at large. He sees this as a potentially serious problem for the Bush Administration. Well, maybe, but I doubt it. For this to be a real problem, voters would have to take seriously the idea that Democrats would pursue bin Laden more vigorously or effectively than President Bush. Absent not only a personality transplant but a philosophy transplant, it is hard to imagine the Democrats posturing themselves as advocates of a no-holds-barred attack on terrorists. As we have written before on this site, there is room to get around to Bush's right on the war, but the Democrats are unable or unwilling to do it. There is a second reason why emphasizing bin Laden's survival is a risky approach for Democrats. It is an issue over which they have no control. The Democrats are used to blocking Republican initiatives in Congress, and then criticizing Republican presidents for being unable to get anything done. But they have no way to block the pursuit of bin Laden. The Democrats could put a lot of eggs in the "we haven't caught bin Laden yet" basket, only to find that a few days later, bin Laden turns up dead. If they define killing bin Laden as the criterion for success in the war against terrorism, they will have to live with the consequences if and when he is killed. I personally would not bet on bin Laden to be alive in November 2004.

The Wall Street Journal reports on the Democrats' effort to retrospectively spin the Georgia Senate election. The Democrats allege that Saxby Chambliss defeated Max Cleland by raising questions about his patriotism. On a weekend talk show, John Kerry said that: "What they did to Max Cleland...a veteran...who lost three limbs in VietNam...and they challenge his patriotism--that sickens everybody in our country." Left unexplained is how a tactic that "sickens everybody" could have been successful. The answer, of course, is that Chambliss never questioned Cleland's patriotism; to do so would have been stupid and suicidal. Rather, Chambliss disagreed with Cleland about various policy issues relating to taxes, missile defense and the homeland security bill. The same Democratic spin is visible elsewhere, too; in Minnesota the Democrats are making a similar claim, that Norm Coleman ran a dirty campaign against Paul Wellstone in which he impugned Wellstone's patriotism. Wellstone, unlike Cleland, might have been vulnerable on this score, but in any event Coleman never did any such thing, always attributing good motives to Wellstone and emphasizing that his disagreements with Wellstone were disagreements over policy. It seems to me that the current Democratic spin effort is part of their larger strategy of neutralizing the terrorist threat as an issue that favors Republicans. They want to disqualify every effort to point out differences between Republican and Democratic candidates on security policy as an impermissible attack on the Democrat's patriotism. This ties in with their earlier attack on the Republicans for "politicizing" the war. While the Democrats are relentless spin masters, and have shown the ability to revise history and move public opinion over time--Clarence Thomas is the definitive example--it is hard to see how this strategy can work. The voters are more concerned about security than anything else, and they want to know where candidates stand on security-related issues.

David Frum on why "Colin Powell should have been fired yesterday." The reason -- Powell's leaks to Bob Woodward. Frum notes that Woodward's new book Bush at War "is essentially an edited transcript of Powell leaks, all of them calculated to injure this administration and undermine its policies on the very eve of military action against Iraq." One can disagree with Frum about when Powell should have been fired, but his bottom line seems indisputable. As Frum puts it, "instead of representing the United States to the world, Powell sees his job as representing the world to the United States. It's time for him to go."

The Washington Times is reporting this morning that British special forces are hunting bin Laden in Yemen. We carried this report on Power Line two weeks ago, based on information from the Debka File. The Times says that the intelligence on bin Laden's whereabouts was gathered by the Mossad from Yasser Arafat's headquarters in Ramallah. This is consistent with the claim that Debka has sources in or close to the Mossad. If Debka is right about this one, it will be a major coup.

The fancy exterminationist hatred of Arabs for Israel infests Columbia University, and the academic elites seem to resent when we notice. Consider the column by Stanley Kurtz in this morning's New York Post, "Campus Conformity." Is anybody going to shout "fire"?

The title of this Washington Post article by David Kay, former U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq says it all --"With More At Stake, Less Will Be Verified." As Kay explains, "the multi-lateral culture isn't comfortable with the tough measures needed to root out hidden weapons." We see this clearly in my post earlier today about how Hans Blix doesn't want to alienate the Iraqis this time. Towards the end of the article, Kay shows why, even if inspections succeed, regime change is necessary. It may be possible to destroy weapons, but one cannot so easily destroy the knowledge and capacity that enables them to be produced. And one can only destroy the political will to use that knowledge and capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction by destroying the political system that leads the state to seek such capabilities.

This is the only report I've seen so far on the Landrieu/Terrell debate on Meet the Press this morning. It seems pretty straightforward and it's hard to tell what impressions the candidates made, but it appears that Terrell more or less held her own. There are four more debates to come before the runoff election, some of which will probably be seen by more people in Louisiana than this morning's show.

Here is a quick report on the foiled hijacking of an El Al flight from Tel Aviv to Istanbul. The days when one guy with a knife could seriously think about hijacking an airliner are long gone, which makes me think this character was a lone nut and not an al Qaeda or Hezbollah operative. El Al has a great reputation for security, which I am sure is well-deserved. But what surprised me the one time I flew El Al (New York to Tel Aviv) was how casual the security seemed. I had expected something much more intense. But then, I suppose it took very little conversation to assure the security person that my wife and I were not terrorists. That's the basic difference between their airport security and ours--they are actually looking for terrorists; we are just going through the motions.

Al Gore is in full campaign mode. Apparently having concluded from the recent elections that the path to success is to attack President Bush as violently as possible, Gore is giving interviews like this one in Time, in which he characterizes the President's policies as "catastrophic." In particular, he claims that President Bush has the worst economic record of any President since Herbert Hoover. (This has a familiar ring; Bill Clinton said the same thing, falsely, about the first President Bush in 1992.)

Just for fun, I decided to compare the current economy with conditions two years into the first term of the last several Democratic presidents. I checked the statistics for unemployment, inflation and change in gross domestic product. Here are the results:

______________Unemployment___Inflation Rate____Change/GDP

Truman, 1947:_______3.9%____________14.6%________--0.4%

Kennedy, 1962:______5.5%____________1.1%__________5.7%

Johnson, 1965:______4.5%____________1.6%__________6.3%

Carter, 1978:________6.1%____________7.6%__________5.5%

Clinton, 1994:________6.1%____________2.6%__________4.0%

Democrat Average:___5.2%_____________5.5%__________4.2%

Compare these numbers to the current economic data:

Bush, 2002:_________5.7%___________0.2%________3.1% (3rd Qtr.)

This means that the average Democrat Misery Index (unemployment plus inflation) two years into each of the last five Democratic administrations is 10.7; the current Misery Index, two years into the Bush administration is 5.9.

Of course, none of these comparisons include the truly bad postwar years, like 1980, the last year of the Carter administration, when unemployment was 7.1% and inflation 13.5%, for a horrifying Misery Index of 20.6. Gross domestic product declined that year, too.

It is easy to argue with any particular set of economic data as conditions are constantly changing and, to some degree, the manner in which these data are compiled also changes over time. Nevertheless, these numbers not only demonstrate the absurdity of Gore’s hyperbolic claims, they also show why the Democrats have not been able to get much traction with their attacks on the economy.

We're still trying to figure out what to make of Bob Woodward's inside account of the administration's deliberations on the war. The Newsweek out tomorrow features Evan Thomas's "In the War Room." Thomas's article provides a handy quick-take on the Woodward project. (Courtesy of our friends at RealClearPolitics.)

The prolific Mark Steyn is back with a good column today as well, "Idea of 'women's issues' a lie." Great quote: "If I've got a choice between Condi Rice and Ted Kennedy, I'll go with the broad. If it's Don Rumsfeld vs. Nancy Pelosi, I'll vote my gender." (Ditto.)

Thanks also to our friend Bruce Sanborn for pointing out James Lileks's "Bleat" of this past Friday, "And now, disgust." To me it reads like some kind of masterpiece.

More on Minnesota's Angry Humorist: Our friend and faithful reader Bruce Sanborn is chairman of the Claremont Institute for the Study of Statesmanhip and Minnesota's foremost student of the unfunny one. As Rocket Man mentioned yesterday, twenty years ago Bruce wrote a long, thoughtful analysis of the unfunny one's first Lake Wobegon novel and deduced, solely from a close reading of the text, that the guy was seething with hatred of America. The review appeared in the first incarnation of the Claremont Review of Books, the one that had to be put to sleep before it bankrupted the Claremont Institute, and is unfortunately unavailable in an electronic format. We have sent Bruce to the basement of his magnificient White Bear Lake home in search of a hard copy of his old review that we can transcribe into an electronic format. We have asked him not to come back upstairs until he finds it. Please stay tuned.

Today Bruce has forwarded his latest meditation on the unfunny one. Continuing our collective efforts to plumb his depths and to interpret his Salon rants, we proudly present Bruce's contribution in its entirety, entitled "Sing, goddess, of the wrath – or then again...":

"The Trunk, deacon, and Hindrocket have all blogged about Garrison Keillor over the last week, but they didn’t mention the Iliad or praise Keillor as a political artist. Oversight, or just leaving that for me?

"Because Keillor is a talented writer and neighbor and has been writing about politics lately, I read his most recent Salon piece, 'Minnesota’s shame,' several times. First time through, I noticed Keillor, who is generally known as a humorist, isn't aiming for laughs; the passion he shows (and seeks) has no relatives in the laughter family. This time he even avoids the modulated irony he typically takes to the public. He's off his stride. He's angry.

"Minnesotans remember the last time Keillor got angry in public, back in the 1980s, when he let us know he was not happy with us and then packed up and left the state, for years. This time, however, he’s come out fighting, and I sense he’s taking a stand and not leaving. Good. Courage and patriotism are good. In 'Minnesota's shame,' Keillor is much more direct, political and sustained in his attack than I have seen him in the past, but he seems to have lost control.

"Keillor pours out admiration for Paul Wellstone and savagely attacks Coleman with intent to assassinate. He states that Coleman is evil, that some people Keillor knows think Coleman killed Wellstone, and that he (Keillor) doesn't agree with them but doesn't say why; Keillor points to Scripture and calls on God; like an angry prophet, he ends: 'Sinner beware.' As his title 'Minnesota’s shame' suggests, however, Keillor doesn't think Norm Coleman is the only sinner God should straighten out.

"On my second read-through, little waves from my memory of Homer’s Iliad lapped against me. I’m not saying Keillor is Achilles, but in politics, when control slips and things get nasty, anger is often the passion advancing the action. Angered at Agamemnon and the Greeks, Achilles left his fellows and sulked in his tent; then Patroclus, his friend-in-arms, died, and Achilles burst from his tent furious and murderous. What explained it? Homer opened the poem with this line 'Sing, goddess, of the wrath of Peleus’ son Achilles.'

"So, that’s it: Keillor’s anger slipped the bounds of reason, and he wrote what he wrote. Or is that it? On my third reading, I focused on Keillor talking about himself as a performer who’s been performing for a long time. I got wondering whether his essay might not be Keillor exercising his art. Was Keillor acting more like Homer than like Achilles, more like artist than like actor? Many people idolize Keillor, and he has sway over liberal-progressives in Minnesota and beyond. Certainly, it’s possible Keillor wants to rally liberal Democrats after virtually nothing came up roses for them on election day. Keillor calculated that irony and humor would not rouse their passions the way a hot-blooded jeremiad would.

"He’d slam and damn Coleman and the Republicans for backing Coleman all the way. He’d say the Republicans got in a car named Unpatriotic, cynically left Main Street, drove right past Fiscal Responsibility Avenue, and then, foul to the core, drove over the hearts of all the people who cared about America and about the Americans who died on 9/11 – and to their eternal shame, Minnesotans rewarded the Republicans with the election; that’s what he’d say; that’s what he said. The Democrats, well, he’d say, they must remember Wellstone and walk like him: 'Paul walked the walk. He was a wonder.' Keillor would urge them to show passion for the not-rich and the not-privileged. But mostly, they had to hate Norm Coleman and the Republicans. Keillor would have his followers’ passion, not their minds. He would excite them to Achilles-like wrath.

"That then may explain what Keillor was up to in writing 'Minnesota’s shame,' but of course if it does, what must Keillor think of his fellow Democrats -- I mean if he calculated that with them he should play the demagogue?"

Did Neville Chamberlain get op-ed pieces published after he failed to deliver "peace in our time?" Probably not. But Shimon Peres does, and here he delivers a typically fatuous product. Nearly every sentence invites dissection, but perhaps the most foolish is this: "The chance that the [Palestinians] will cooperate with us [in putting a stop to terrorism] is remote unless they can identify a vested interest in such cooperation, namely a political horizon." Peres fails to note that the Palestinians had a vested political interest in such cooperation for years, namely keeping the likes of Peres himself in power -- politicians who were hell-bent on giving the Palestinians nearly everything they asked for. Yet this wasn't enough to promote Palestinian "cooperation." On the other hand, Peres' most foolish sentence might be this: "I have discussed this matter of late with high-profile Palestinian leaders and was given the impression that they were prepared to undertake this three-pronged endeavor [Peres' latest "roads to peace"]. Then there is Peres' impassioned finale: "The pace [to resolution of the conflict] must be stepped up and a solution found that is acceptable to most countries of the world, and to the greater part of the Israeli and Palestinian populations: two enlightened states one alongside the other, in a Middle East whose economic achievements surmount the causes of strife." This man is delusional. Is Dr. Krauthammer in the house?

The Washington Post's editorial board sides with the view of the U.S. as to how inspections in Iraq should be handled. The Post finds that Hans Blix and Kofi Annan have already "lapsed back into the old routine of misusing [U.N.] inspectors" and urges the administration not to accept that routine. This otherwise solid editorial errs, however, in stating that the purpose of the Security Council's resolution "is not to dispatch international inspectors on a prolonged hunt for the weapons of mass destruction that Saddam Hussein has produced and hidden." That is precisely what Kofi Annan and key members of the Security Council have in mind, and the more prolonged the better. To them, this exercise is about avoiding war, not finding and eliminating weapons of mass destruction. The Post's news story below makes that clear enough.

Here's a surprise: the United States and the United Nations differ on how Iraqi inspections should be carried out. So reports today's Washington Post. According to the Post, U.N. inspector Hans Blix wants a "more measured approach" than the U.S. does to "achieving disarmament." The Post also reports that Blix "is trying to change the culture of the arms inspectors, whose predecessors aroused deep animosity in Iraq for using tough tactics to gain access to [inspection] sites." We trust that Blix will be more sensitve to the concerns of Saddam Hussein.

I'm laughing out loud at your post on the Amherst Marxists' apartment, Trunk. Gosh, Rocket Man and I did much better than that when we roomed together at Dartmouth. We even managed to graduate in four years. I guess we weren't true Marxists.

Our search for a shaft of sunlight to brighten the day proved worthwhile. Don't miss this from the Onion: "Marxists' Apartment a Microcosm of Why Marxism Doesn't Work." And pass it on to your college-age kids. (Courtesy of No Left Turns.)

More on Minnesota's Angry Humorist: We aren't through with the unfunny one yet. Our reader Brian Ward is the proprietor of the Fraters Libertas blog. Brian's excellent account of Norm Coleman's visit to the Wild game at the Xcel Center in St. Paul the Saturday before the election, an account from which we quoted extensively, provided a genuine indicator of coming events. Brian is a long-time observer of the unfunny one, and has written us to assert that the unfunny one's unfunniness is not a recent development:

"Regarding the humor of Garrison Keillor, I've listened to PHC for about 10 years and I must say that its never been particularly amusing. He does attempt a lot of jokes and delivers punch lines all the time in his monologs, but they typically aim (and land) somewhere in the space between cornpone Hee Haw gags and Boone and Erickson style 'Ole and Lena' jokes. And the content of the sketch comedy rarely rises above the level of a 4H club skit (though I will say some of the performers are genuinely talented).

"Part of his inability to be funny may be the lack of critical review he receives, either professionally or from his audience. Since ratings (relative to commercial radio) don't matter on NPR, he's under no pressure to appeal to a wide audience (who would demand that he actually be funny before they tuned in). Furthermore, the relatively small segment of the population that does appreciate his radio antics seem to be of the type who just appreciate his political stances and are apt to give courtesy laughter to anyone whom they presume is fighting the good fight. I've attended performances of PHC and overwhelmingly the laughter that comes from the audience is courtesy laughter, not a spontaneous reaction to what's being said. It's the kind of laughter that says 'yes, I recognize what you're doing is an attempt at humor (particularly since I've seen the punch line coming since you started the bit) and since I agree with what you're attempting and I want to support you, I'll make sounds with my throat commonly recognized as laughter.' It's the kind of laugher you hear at the punch lines during your kid's high school production of 'The Music Man' or heard coming out of urban sophisticates at Uptown [Minneapolis movie theater] showings of 'Bowling for Columbine.'

"This is the reason that Garrison can tell the same two jokes during every performance and get the same reaction. 'People in St. Paul don't like people in Minneapolis' (roar of laughter from crowd)...'I like to call Minneapolis...the Paris of the Midwest...' (roar of laughter, followed by an explosion of applause).

"The strength of PHC is the music (and not the Keillor sung torch ballads, mind you- -these range from quaint to outright embarrassing). The guest artists he attracts, from genres as diverse as classical to jazz to bluegrass to country are consistently outstanding. And his reports from Lake Woebegone are often nuanced and beautiful and I've gotten a lot out of hearing them over the years."

I think the Krauthammer piece posted below also helps us understand Keillor's reaction to Norm Coleman. Watching this one from a distance, it seemed to me that it was Coleman's moderation, good looks, and excellent demeanor that drove Keillor's otherwise inexplicably rabid attack. Although the Minnesota liberals accused Coleman of viciously attacking Wellstone and Mondale, it may actually have been the fact that he didn't -- the respectful way, for example, he referred to Mondale as the Vice President throughout the debate even as he was burying this relic -- that they made them so resentful. Sort of like the way certain liberals (Geraldo Rivera comes to mind) hated Kenneth Starr even more after they found that he hadn't engaged in extra-marital sex while investigating Bill Clinton.

Unlike Krauthammer, I'm not a former psychiatrist (he recommends Thorazine for the liberal elites). But the vitriolic way certain liberals react to those conservatives (often moderate conservatives) who seem to lack inner demons suggests that their hatred has less to do with policy disagreement than with envy of apparent psychological well-being.

Democrat David Kranz, writing in the Sioux Falls Argus Leader, says that people close to Tom Daschle do not expect him to seek re-election to the Senate in 2004. He is likely to run for President; Kranz writes, in what appears to be a non sequitur, that "The perception that he was one of the national losers in [the 2002 election] may drive him closer to a presidential bid." Lots of luck. He'll be competing against another of this year's losers, Dick Gephardt. Kranz says that South Dakota Democrats are scratching their heads over who might replace Daschle as a Senatorial candidate; none of the alternatives appear strong. The Republicans, on the other hand, have two extremely strong candidates, Bill Janklow and John Thune. One of the anomalies of current politics is that the Democrats are competitive in the Senate, despite the fact that a large majority of states usually vote Republican. (Logically, the Democrats should be more competitive in the House, given that their strength is disproportionately in the large-population states.) Nowhere is this anomaly more sriking than in the Dakotas, two Republican states with four Democratic Senators. The Dakotas are the key to the Democrats remaining competitive in the Senate, and starting in 2004, the balance of power will likely start to shift, especially if Daschle does not seek re-election. By the way, Kranz concludes his column by pooh-poohing suspicions about the late influx of votes from the Pine Ridge reservation that swung this year's election to Tim Johnson.

Charles Krauthammer considers the pronouncements of Bill Moyers and, paraphrasing Oliver Wendell Holmes, concludes that "three generations of left-wing idiocy are enough."

Of the countries ruled by Islamofascists, Iran has the most developed opposition, partly because of that country's pro-Western past and partly because it has suffered the longest under Islamist rule. Most recently, Professor Hashem Aghajari has been sentenced to be hanged by the Islamic courts for arguing, as this Associated Press Report puts it, that "each generation should be able to interpret Islam on its own, without clerical guidance." Since the death sentence was imposed, students in Tehran have protested almost daily. The photograph below shows students holding pictures of Aghajari. Iran's president, Mohammad Khatami, has criticized the death sentence, and a grandson of the Ayatollah Khomeini joined in yesterday's protest. It is noteworthy that the Associated Press, which we have often criticized, refers to the clerics who imposed the death sentence as "Islamic hard-liners." The New York Times continues to call them "conservatives." I expect major surprises from Iran over the next several years; that country will play a pivotal role if President Bush is to achieve his goal of liberating the Arab world.

The Indonesian police have done a good job of cracking the Bali bombing case. They captured the plotter who owned one of the vehicles that contained a bomb; this has allowed them to learn the identities of the other members of the gang. Their names have now been released and photographs have been published; they are believed to be hiding somewhere in Indonesia. The Sydney Morning Herald sums up the state of the investigation. The chief plotter, Imam Samudra, fought with the Taliban in Afghanistan and studied explosives there.

This morning's Washington Post features the first excerpt from Bob Woodward's forthcoming book, Bush at War. The excerpt is "A Struggle for the President's Heart and Mind: Powell Journeyed From Isolation to Winning the Argument on Iraq."

I find Woodward's breathless you-are-there insider accounts written in his trademark leaden prose to be virtually unreadable. I'm also usually disappointed if not mystified by the administration officials who either confide in Woodward or use him for their own purposes. My reading of the excerpt this morning suggests that this group includes Colin Powell, his assistant Richard Armitage, and Condoleezza Rice; it does not appear to include Richard Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld. Deacon is our veteran WaPologist, and I solicit his help on this point.

This morning's New York Times also has an extremely interesing story about JFK's prescription drugs, "In Kennedy file, a portrait of illness and pain." Here the relevant standard of comparison is probably Elvis, but the Times account offers us litle help in placing JFK's usage along the Presley continuum. The Times does helpfully note that, based on a listening to the administration's taped Cuban missile crisis deliberatons, JFK did not sound impaired. So there!

Here's a good piece on blogging by Linda Seebach in the Rocky Mountain News. She concludes: "The writer A. J. Liebling famously said, 'Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one,' but owning a press is a rather expensive proposition. Blogging isn't, and that's why it matters to democracy."

You know it's a really slow news night when we start talking about UFO's. The Sci Fi cable TV channel reports that it is sending a team of archaeologists to Roswell, New Mexico to "verify once and for all" whether a UFO piloted by three aliens crash-landed there in 1947--as one humorist has pointed out, shortly before Al Gore was allegedly "born." The Sci Fi channel promises a "smoking gun" when its story airs on November 22. In the meantime, I highly recommend that you get your hands on a cult movie classic: "Six Days in Roswell," directed by Roger Nygard, the brother of Power Line reader Steve Nygard. The semi-documentary movie traces the odyssey of a young Minnesotan who journeys to Roswell for the annual alien festival. Only a few of the characters in the movie--generally speaking, the least wacky ones--are actors. It is extremely funny.

Governor-elect Bob Ehrlich will rescind the moratorium on the dealth penalty in Maryland immediately upon becoming governor in January, according to this report from the Washington Post, The Post also reports that Ehrlich has renewed his pledge not to raise taxes despite the state's $600 million deficit. Marylanders like me already pay extremely high taxes (compared to Virginians, for example) for mediocre services. Waste, fraud, and corruption are a way of life here in Maryland, which, in my view, is the main reason Ehrlich was elected in this overwhelmingly Democratic state

Keillor was funny once. He captured certain aspects of Minnesota culture in a way that was amusing and seemingly affectionate. Twenty years ago, however, our friend Bruce Sanborn wrote an article in which he argued that Keillor hated America. At the time, that assertion was heretical; now, it seems prescient. If we can find Bruce's article, we'll link to it.

I agree with Rocket Man's comment that the public is seeing a side of liberalism that isn't pretty. The media has always portrayed those on the "right" as haters, while treating liberals as high-minded, gentle victims of the right's irrational anger. This image is reinforced, for example, by endless Hollywood productions about blacklisting in the 1950s. Having been on the left, and knowing many more liberals than conservatives for most of my life, it's long been clear to me that liberals take a back seat to no one when it comes to hating. And, as one moves a little further to the left, one finds that the real object of the hatred is often America.

One manifestation of this hatred is Hollywood's love affair with Fidel Castro, discussed in a Washington Post op-ed piece. Strangely, the piece does not appear on the Post's web site; if I find it later I will post it. Hernandez notes that "the dictator exerts some sort of snake-charmer appeal that makes hardened Hollywood veterans swoon like pre-teen girls at a Backstreet Boys concert." That appeal, I would suggest, is his ability to survive as a thorn in America's side. The swooners listed by Hernandez are Jack Nicholson, Robert Redford, Danny Glover, Jane Fonda, Woody Harrelson, Matt Dillon, Ed Asner, Shirley MacLaine, Naomi Campbell, Kate Moss, Oliver Stone, and Stephen Spielberg, who recently pronounced his dinner with Castro "the most important hours of my life."

G. Chimes is my "conservative cousin" from New York. Thanks for pointing us to Miller's piece on the libertarian party, George. I have a quetion for Rocket Man and Trunk. Do you guys think Keillor was funny at one time? He was hugely popular with a certain type of person here in the Washington, D.C. area, but this happened at about the time I stopped listening to National Public Radio and stopped respecting the tastes of the kind of people with whom he was hugely popular. As a result, I never had much exposure to him. So I'm curious about your views, expecially since, as Rocket Man says, it's a slow news weekend.

It's a slow news weekend, so I guess we're doing culture. If you're not already familiar with Arts & Letters Daily, you should check it out. ALD was out of business briefly, but is now back. It's a very mixed bag; it links to articles on literature, philosophy, politics and the arts; some are really good while others are annoying. But you can always find something fun there.

I have searched the ends of the earth via the Internet today for a column or item that shows a glimmer of wit that might bring a smile. No such luck.

One of my favorite literary creations is John Updike's fictional alter ego, the American Jewish novelist Henry Bech. Updike has come back to Bech off and on for the past thirty years in three books filled with stories of great wit and insight. If you have never read any of the stories, a handy overview is provided in "Review of the Complete Henry Bech."

Updike's publisher has made one of the Bech stories available for free on its Web site, a story from Updike's 1982 book Bech is Back--the story "White on White." (The Bea referred to in the first paragraph is Bech's wife. The story immediately follows "Bech Wed." In "White on White," Bech and Bea have just separated.) I commend the story to your attention, for no reason other than that I think it's funny.

Louisiana Senate candidates Suzanne Terrell and Mary Landrieu will be on Meet the Press tomorrow morning; Tim Russert will moderate a debate. We'll be interested to get impressions from any readers who watch it. I'm not sure whether Terrell is ready for prime time. On the other hand, it's a big opportunity for her. If Landrieu blunders, or if Terrell comes off as equally capable, her campaign will get a big boost. Terrell doesn't have to do better, but only hold her own to gain ground.

It appears to me that no one comes closer to sorting out the meaning of the latest Arab terrorist murders in Israel than the DEBKAfile Web site. Today's posting is "Secret Fatah-Hizballah alliance manifested in Hebron."

National Review writer John Miller has an interesting column in this morning's New York Times. Miller attributes the victory of Tim Johnson in the South Dakota senate race to the 3,000 votes siphoned from John Thune by the libertarian party candidate. I'm not sure what I think about the thesis generally--was Ralph Nader the cause of Al Gore's defeat?--but the column is worth reading: "A third party on the right." (Thanks to our reader G. Chimes or G.C. Himes for pointing the column out.)

Following up on Rocket Man's clinical demolition of Minnesota's angry humorist, the unfunny one, we proudly present Charles Krauthammer's "The Fantasy Life of American Liberals."

Also worthy of your attention this morning is a column that appeared earlier this week on the Wall Street Journal's editorial page and is now available on its OpinionJournal Web site, Fouad Ajami's "Two faces, one terror."

In the wake of the most recent terrorist threats, England is beginning a public education campaign on how to survive biological or chemical attack.

I read Garrison Keillor's response to his Republican critics in Salon earlier today, but found it too appalling for immediate comment. Having thought about it for a while, I can only say that Keillor has gone around the bend. He begins his rebuttal by denouncing Norm Coleman as "truly evil," "cheap and cynical and unpatriotic," an "empty suit." What was the transgression that prompted this vicious denunciation? Coleman, during the Senate campaign, "came within an inch of accusing Wellstone of being an agent of al-Qaida." Only Coleman didn't. As any Minnesotan can attest, Coleman ran a dignified and principled campaign. (The mud that was slung in that campaign was slung mainly by Wellstone.) If Coleman had said or implied that Wellstone was an agent of al-Qaida, Keillor no doubt would have told us when and how Coleman did so. But Coleman didn't, and Keillor doesn't pretend to have any evidence to back up his slur. Coleman disagreed with Wellstone on the Iraq resolution, to be sure. Wellstone's pacifism in the face of the terrorist attack on America was at odds with the views of most Minnesotans, and, had he not been killed in a tragic plane crash, would have cost him the election. But to suggest that Coleman accused Wellstone of being unpatriotic is absurd. Note, however, the irony that Keillor--a famous ironist--explicitly accuses Coleman of being "unpatriotic." For liberals these days, there is no such thing as a disagreement over policy. But from that very low point, Keillor goes farther downhill. Coleman is a "son of a bitch," a "cynic," "evil," "offensive to our national memory and obscenely evil." Keillor descends deeper and deeper: "I personally don't believe he had anything to do with the crash of Paul's plane. Plenty of people suspect he did. I don't." And then Keillor, who has never been big on self-awareness, seems to look into a mirror: "All you had to do was look at Coleman's face, that weird smile, the anger in the forehead. Or see how poorly his L.A. wife played the part of Mrs. Coleman, posing for pictures with him, standing apart, stiff, angry." Well, someone is angry here, but it isn't Norm or Laurie Coleman. And speaking of weird smiles with anger in the forehead, check out the picture of Keillor that accompanies the Slate article. Keillor concludes his piece by putting himself in the shoes of God: "To gain the whole world and lose your own soul is not a course that Scripture recommends....God has a way of returning and straightening those things out. Sinner beware." If Pat Robertson wrote something this over the top, it would be front page news. In the end, Keillor has located himself somewhere in Chomskyland: the domain of the mentally ill. In the aftermath of the election, a lot of masks have fallen from the faces of prominent liberals, revealing something beneath that is not pretty. Not pretty at all. But I think the general public is getting a clear view of where the hate, the anger and the irrationality reside.

More on Minnesota's Angry Humorist: Until Rocket Man steps up to the plate, I highly recommend blogger Mitch Berg's serial lutefisking of the unfunny one on his site, "Shot in the Dark."

Yesterday's Wall Street Journal carried a "reported" editorial on the South Dakota senate race. The conclusion is inescapable that John Thune won it. The Journal's editorial is "The Oglala Sioux's Senator." Today's Wall Street Journal carries Daniel Henninger's brilliant column: "Democrats need to rejoin America."

Friends and readers: Thanks for your messages regarding our erroneous links to the Onion and to MEMRI in the posts below; each has now been fixed (I think). In addition to the MEMRI report on the subject of the disgusting Egyptian television series, Debka also carries an informative column: "Saudi Hand Behind Egypt's Anti-Jewish TV Series." If you have any influence with our State Department, please ask the department to check these items out.

Speaking of the Jerusalem Post, here's Bret Stephens' take on the implications of the U.N. Iraq resolution. Stephens, a favorite here at Power Line, thinks that the resolution lowers the likelihood of U.S. military action. Stephens also speculates about the war against Israel that likely would be triggered if the U.S. attacks Iraq, as well as other implications for the region.

The Washington Post denounces the Egyptian government for promoting "galloping Anti-Semitism" through the airing of the TV series "Horseman Without A Horse." The Egyptian government censors Egyptian television, so the airing of the show is not the by-product of free speech. The Post declares that "thanks in large part to Cairo's propangandists, fundamental hatred of Jews, as opposed to opposition to Israeli poliicies, is playing a growing role in mainstream Arab policies." So even the Post has finally noticed. But what about our State Department? As I noted a few days ago, according to the Jerusalem Post the State Department has said that the first six episodes of the lengthy series are free of anti-Semitism. Yet, as the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) shows in this report, there can be no dispute that the show is anti-Semitic. Indeed, the producer of the show (having returned from observing Iraqi elections) boasts that he is exposing the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (a libelous forgery used by the Russian government as a pretext for persecuting Jews) as the basis of Zionism. So why would it be relevant if the first six episodes happen not to contain anti-Semitic content? Perhaps the key can be found in the Washington Post editorial. It urges the administration to cut back, if not cut off, foreign aid to Egypt, and suggests that Congress become involved if necessary. Is the State Department, which initially asked Egypt not to permit the broadcast, now attempting to cover-up Egyptian anti-Semitism in order to protect Egypt's $2 billion a year subsidy?

Federal authorities have announced that they captured a top al Qaeda operative within "the past week or so." The terrorist's name was not released, but he was described as one of the top two-dozen al Qaeda leaders. I don't suppose this is related to Tom Daschle's whining about lack of progress in the war yesterday, but it might be; it wouldn't be a bad tactic to stockpile good news on captured or killed terrorists to be released at helpful times.

The Republicans might have won the election, but the Associated Press still knows who the good guys are. Check out this AP report, featuring a photo of Tom Daschle and Joe Lieberman arriving at a news conference. Note the AP's neutral, factual characterization of the Democrats' position on the homeland security bill: "They want to amend the House-passed bill establishing a new Cabinet-level Homeland Security Department to eliminate a provision favoring special interests." Oh. I guess that settles that.

Andrew Sullivan pointed us to this Onion parody, which I think is hilarious. The headline: "Crazed Palestinian Gunman Angered By Stereotypes."

Al Gore has just come out in favor of a Canadian-style, "single payer" health care system. This is the same Al Gore who, if I recall correctly, bashed Bill Bradley for favoring such a system during the 2000 presidential primaries. Gore clearly doesn't want anyone serious to be on his left during the 2004 presidential primaries. As David Frum notes in this piece from National Review Online, the Canadian system is wildly unpopular here (voters in liberal Oregon have just rejected it) and properly so. As Frum, a Canadian, puts it, "Canada has the best health care system on earth -- so long as you don't get sick." But Gore, I think, realizes that he can only defeat President Bush if (a) he gets the nomination from his leftward-turning party and (b) things really go to hell, in which case no one will hold his support for "single payer" against him.

More from Minnesota's Angry Humorist: We ain't willing to pay to see the rest of the unfunny one's latest ravings, but we're willing to look at the stuff for entertainment value if it's free: "Minnesota's shame." He may not be funny, but hey, he's been through all of F. Scott Fitzgerald's books; he's very well read, it's well known.

Here is, I think, a profoundly stupid headline from a column in Long Island's liberal Newsday: "Significance of Pelosi's Gender is Getting Lost." The column decries the fact that the reaction to Pelosi's selection as minority leader has focused on the fact that she is a "San Francisco Democrat" rather than on her gender. This would seem to me to be a good thing. Curiously, the author, Marie Cocco, derides "Republican spinners" for pigeonholing Pelosi as a liberal. Yet Cocco acknowledges that "The nation has voted above all, for a muscular military and foreign policy that Pelosi herself stood against when she voted against authorizing war in Iraq." But, hey, so what? The important thing is she's a woman.

National Review Online has just posted Victor Davis Hanson's new column, great as always: "Our Gordian Knot."

The Washington Post reports that security officials in Europe are even more explicit than the FBI in warning of the possibility of major terrorist attacks in the near future. The primary focus of concern appears to be chemical and biological weapons; a Jordanian al Qaeda leader named Abu Zarqawi was singled out as especially dangerous. He apparently specializes in chemican and biological weapons and is suspected to be in the act of organizing attacks in western Europe. Interpol reports that "All intelligence experts are agreed that al Qaeda is preparing a major terrorist operation, simultaneous attacks that would not target the United States alone but several countries at the same time."

Charles Krauthammer on the U.N. resolution. Krauthammer isn't pleased that we've gone along with the inspections regime, although he is confident that President Bush ultimately will do what is necessary, and even sees possible strategic advantages (along with the potential disadvantages) in proceeding as we are. Krauthammer's best line: "Does [Hans Blix] want to go home to Sweden as the man who blew the whistle that triggered the invasion of Iraq? Perhaps the United States should promise him asylum."

Friends and readers: Many of you no doubt noticed that, through no fault of our own, Power Line had a serious outage if not a near-death experience yesterday. My theory is that, like Tinkerbell's legions, you wished us back to life. Rocket Man advises me, however, that the Blogger folks actually responded to our 911 call at noon yesterday within eight hours or so. In any event, we're grateful to be back in business, and grateful that you stuck with us. If anything, because of upgraded software support, the site will be better than ever.

The London Times, in "al Qaeda Resurgent," editorializes intelligently about the significance of the alleged bin Laden audiotape and the continuing challenges facing the effort to eradicate the terrorist group--not least, the difficulty of cutting off the flow of funds to al Qaeda.

More on the Louisiana Senate race from the Washington Times. Governor Foster, who had threatened to back Mary Landrieu, has now come out for Suzanne Terrell because he "feels an obligation to support the President." Think maybe he got a call from the White House? Other Republicans are also falling into line, and a new Terrell ad is running statewide. This is going to be a race. If I am not mistaken, Louisiana has never in its history elected a Republican to the Senate. If Terrell, with very little experience and no unusual appeal, breaks that record, it will be another indication that most of what passed for conventional wisdom pre-September 11 is now obsolete.

Rocket Man is right about the ambiguity as to what the MVP award is supposed to mean. The term "valuable" can be seen as implying some penalty for playing on a poor team, I suppose. But A-Rod was so much better than anyone else this year that the penalty would have to be out-and-out disqualification for him not to be the MVP, in my view. In the old days, when batting average was regarded as the key statistic, I don't think anyone would have awarded the MVP to a candidate whose batting average was less than five-sixths of his rival's (say .250 as opposed to .300), unless other key statistics strongly favored that candidate. Today slugging percentage has replaced batting average, and Tejada's slugging percentage was less than five-sixths that of Rodriguez. And Rodriguez was also clearly superior in on-base percentage and runs produced.

But getting back to the ambiguity that Rocket Man noted, I find it signifcant that when fans and sportswriters discuss past MVP awards they tend to assume that the award was given to the best player. For example, fans and writers will note Barry Bonds' award count in trying to show that Bonds is better than Hank Aaron and Willie Mays were. No one goes back to check how, say, the 1959 pennant race played out in order to determine whether Aaron and Mays lost the award because their teams didn't do well enough (they did not lose it for that reason; in 1959, the MVP was shortstop Ernie Banks of the lowly Cubs, the A-Rod of his day but not as good; Banks also won it in 1958 -- modern sportswriters indulge themselves more than their predecessors did in denying the award to the best player). Thus, since the MVP honor quite naturally will be viewed in retrospect as indicating who the best player was, perhaps it would be best to award it on that basis.

Here's the Washington Post's take on the Louisiana Senate race (thanks to my daughter for pointing me to it). The Post suggests that Landrieu is in "the fight of her life." (What about her initial Senate race, which she won, or stole, by a razor thin margin?). It notes that voting in Democratic strongholds, and especially among African-Americans, was very light last week. The Post expects turnout to be even lower in the run-off, and it notes that the Republicans are still "flush with cash from the general election." The Republicans plan to use the same strategy that worked for Saxby Chambliss in Georgia -- essentially attacking her for not supporting President Bush on homeland security and tax cuts. Chambliss closed a gap comparable to the one some polls say Landrieu's opponent, Suzanne Haik Terrell, now faces. On the other hand, Terrell is no Chambliss from what I can tell. And the Post notes that prominent Louisiana Republicans, including the governor, are refusing to endorse her. In short, Landrieu looks to be the clear favorite, but the race still seems worth watching.

Before signing off for the night, I can't resist noting one more indication of the collapse of intelligent liberalism in America: PETA protesters storming the stage at the Victoria's Secret Fashion Show in New York, earlier tonight:

And just on principle, in hopes of annoying any PETA members who may accidentally stumble across this site--we would never do this just to pander for more hits, of course--here are the Victoria's Secret models on the runway at the start of the show:

Scott Ritter, who has made a lucrative career out of his formerly-obscure position as a U.N. weapons inspector, sounds off again. Ritter's faith in Saddam Hussein and inspections is touching, sort of, but a little hard to make any sense of. He says that war is now inevitable: "We're going to war, and there's not a damn thing the inspectors can do to stop it...." This is "a shame," because "inspections worked once and they can work again." We'll, let's consider that. However well inspections may or may not have been working up until 1998, they certainly stopped working at that point because Saddam kicked out the inspectors, including Ritter. Saddam was able to do this because there was no credible threat of force backing up the inspection regime. So for the last four years, inspections have certainly not been "working," since they haven't taken place. Now inspections will be resumed. Why? Because of President Bush's credible threat of force. Inspections may or may not work now, but if they do, it will be because President Bush forced Saddam's hand, not because of ineffectual wailing by left-wingers like Ritter--who, for all of his professed devotion to inspections, was completely silent about their four-year cessation, and began his public complaints only when President Bush started pressing for their resumption. Whose side, exactly, is he on?

A number of readers emailed us to say that the link to Ted Rall's post-election cartoon was defective. We've fixed the link in yesterday's post, and here it is again. Just another indication of the seriousness and intellectual integrity of today's left.

I haven't yet weighed in on the baseball discussion from early--very early--this morning. Here are my opinions, for what they are worth: 1) Doug Mientkiewicz is by far the best fielding first baseman in baseball. Giving John Olerud the Gold Glove is a travesty. 2) As to the MVP award, I think there has always been ambiguity about what the award represents. In some sports, there is a "Player of the Year" award. So designated, I think everyone understands that the award goes to the player who has the best year, regardless of whether his team is good enough to win a title. In baseball, the "most valuable" designation has always inhabited an uneasy middle ground in which there is an implication that to be most valuable, a player must have helped his team to win (or at least come close to) a pennant. Thus, for example, Steve Carlton didn't win the MVP in 1972 even though he was clearly the outstanding player that year. Alex Rodriguez may be in the same category this year. It seems to me that baseball needs to decide whether its MVP award is the same as, or different from, a Player of the Year Award. If it is different, someone should figure out how and to what extent a team's performance factors in. If it is the same, A-Rod should win it.

More commentary on the Democrats' swerve to the left, this time from the Washington Post. Here is the Post's take on events: "A decade after Bill Clinton pushed his party toward the center of American politics, inspiring a vibrant movement of 'New Democrat' followers in Congress, a liberal resurgence is sweeping the party, threatening to brush centrists to the side." Pinch me, I think I'm dreaming. Revisionist history: the problem with McGovern and Dukakis is that they just weren't quite liberal enough; same with Gephardt and Daschle. The most interesting thing about the article is the tone taken by the Post--definitely critical of the leftward trend, and giving more than equal time to "centrist" critics.

Ann Coulter's latest includes the fact that newly-elected House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi was one of twelve Representatives who voted to revoke the Boy Scouts' 84-year old federal charter two years ago. The Democrats seem to be driving off a cliff.

Tom Daschle appears to have been unhinged by last week's defeat. Today he petulantly complained that "We can't find bin Laden, we haven't made real progress in finding key elements of al Qaeda. They continue to be as great a threat today as they were one and a half years ago. So by what measure can we claim to be successful so far?" I think most Americans understand that: 1) The reason why al Qaeda is a threat today is that for eight years the Clinton administration did nothing to combat the terrorist network; they even refused to take bin Laden prisoner when he was offered to us by the government of Sudan. 2) Tom Daschle has done absolutely nothing to help in the war against terrorism, either before or after Sept. 11, nor will he do anything in the future. On the contrary, he hopes the war will go poorly, which he believes will advance his own political career. 3) Great progress has been made by the U.S. Army and our security agencies in fighting al Qaeda and other terrorist groups in the U.S., Afghanistan, the Philippines and around the world. No thanks to Tom Daschle. The Democrats in general, and Daschle in particular, appear to be taking to heart the theory that they need to oppose President Bush more vigorously and distinguish themselves more clearly from the Republicans. We have expressed our views on this theory in a number of posts in recent days.

Reader Greg Nesmith of Baton Rouge thinks we were too quick to write off the Republican's chances in the Louisiana runoff election. He points out that in the poll cited by Real Clear Politics, Mary Landrieu's lead over Suzanne Terrell is only seven points among likely voters. I still have some reservations based on Terrell's inexperience and divisions within the Louisiana GOP, but President Bush will visit Louisiana at least once and maybe twice before the December 7 election, and he is extremely popular in Louisiana, so anything might happen. We hope Greg will keep us advised of events on the ground in Louisiana between now and then; we will pass on any intelligence we receive.

The effects of last week's election are already being felt in the Senate. Today the Senate Judiciary Committee forwarded two nominees--including the Rocket Prof's friend Michael McConnell--to the Senate floor on a voice vote. Prior to the election, both nominations had been blocked from obtaining a hearing by the one-vote Democrat majority on the Judiciary Committee.

The Washington Post reports that the State Department failed to obtain a warrant for the arrest of John Muhammad after a State Department employee in Antigua reported to her superiors that she suspected Muhammad of having committed a crime by giving her a forged birth certificate. According to the Post, if the State Department had obtained a warrant for his arrest, Muhammad would have been detained when he tried to return to the United States and would have faced a federal charge carrying a sentence of up to 10 years in prison. Thus, his Washington D.C. shooting spree probably would not have occurred. Meanwhile, Joel Mowbray of National Review Online reports that Senate Democrats are fighting for the confirmation of Maura Harty as head of the Consular Affairs office at the State Department. And, according to Mowbray, the Republicans may go along with it. Ms. Harty helped formulate the "Visa Express" program which let in three of the September 11 terrorists. She also was in charge of dealing with overseas abductions of American children and incurred the wrath of the parents of victims through what the parent of two girls kidnapped in Saudi Arabia calls "indifference bordering on hostility to the interests of American parents." Mowbray makes a convincing case that Harty is part of the State Department's "courtesy culture" that has given rise to the gaping holes in our border security. Such as the one John Muhammad crawled through when the State Department didn't see fit to follow up on the suspicions of its employee in Antigua.

Norm Coleman seems to be undertaking his senatorial responsibities in the same spirit that led him to appoint as his deputy mayor a Democratic former St. Paul city councilman who made the surgical commitment to femininity as a full-fledged member of the "transgender community": "Coleman to champion Wellstone proposals." Say it ain't so, Norm!

Unlike Republicans, Democrats always stay in character. This morning's Star Tribune suggests that Senator Wellstone's death will almost certainly give rise to the perfect union of the Wellstones and the trial lawyers: "Ciresi's law firm looking into Wellstone crash." Hey, Norm, take a lesson!

The Minnesota Twins' first baseman is Doug M., the best defensive first baseman I have ever seen. Is it possible there is another player who saves more outs at his position than M. has the past couple years? In his first full season with the Twins he won a gold glove for his defensive play, and I believe he had just as good a season in the field this past year, although his offensive production suffered. In the gold glove balloting, he was edged this year by Seattle's John Olerud: Here's the report from this morning's Star Tribune: "Twins: Hunter wins another Gold Glove, but not Mientkiewicz." Is this some kind of a joke?

George Will brings a historian's understanding to the November 5 results, and a psychiatrist's understanding to the emotions roiling inside the liberal breast. It's not pretty, but it's edifying, and it's a great reminder that we need to be protected from these folks: "The party of recycling."

It's one of those silly sports arguments that may be too subjective to resolve. Should baseball's Most Valuable Player (MVP) award go to the best player in the league even if his team has a poor year? This report from ESPN shows that, in the minds of those who vote on the award, the answer is "no." Alex Rodriguez of the Texas Rangers was clearly the best player in the American League this year. An outstanding fielder at the key defensive position of shortstop, he put up wonderful offensive numbers. Yet because his team finished in last place, he finished a distant second in the MVP voting to Miguel Tejada of the highly successful (but not champion) Oakland A's. Tejada is also a fine fielding shortstop, but his offensive production falls far short of A-Rod's. The numbers I look at most closely are Slugging Percentage and On-Base Percentage. Rodriguez's numbers are .623 and .392 respectively. Tejada's are .508 and .354. Runs produced (RBI plus runs scored) is also considered a significant statistic, and it favors players like Tejada, who play for top teams. Yet Rodriguez "produced" 267 runs, compared to 239 for Tejada. But the A's won 103 games and the Rangers won only 72.

So who should be the MVP? As I suggested, this is a somewhat silly debate, but one that many fans can't resist. I come down firmly on A-Rod's side. To me, a player's value is measured by the extent to which he causes his team to score runs and stops opponents from doing the same. Studies demostrates what is obvious -- causing your team to score runs and the other team not to score them translates pretty straightforwardly into creating victories for your team, which is what every player is there to do. It is clear to me that Rodriguez created a significantly larger run surplus for his team this year than Tejada did for his, and thus created more wins.

The typical response is to note that Texas could have finished last without Rodriguez (although with fewer victories), whereas Oakland could not have edged out the Angels for first place in their division without Tejada. But, because of the closeness of the race in the AL West, there are probably half a dozen or more Oakland players of whom this can be said. Are they all more valuable than A-Rod? Moreover, the 1927 Yankess were so good that they probably could have won the pennant without Babe Ruth. Did that make him less "valuable" than Paul Waner, without whom the Pirates could not have won the National League pennant that same year? In the end, I think sportswriters should stick to identifying and rewarding excellence and not concern themselves with what might have occurred in counter-factual situations. They seem to have enough difficulty doing the former.

Thomas Sowell offers the Republicans good advice on how they can appeal to minority voters. His logic is so compelling--minority voters should be receptive to conservative ideas because they usually cannot insulate themselves from the ill effects of liberal policies--that one can only wonder why Republicans have not already made more inroads.

The one and only Real Clear Politics has the first post-November 5 poll in Louisiana; it shows Mary Landrieu with a 15 point lead. No hope for the GOP in this one, I'm afraid.

More liberal hate: OK, I know Ted Rall is too easy a target, but here is his post-election cartoon. Just another indication of how far the left is from being serious about anything.

Income inequality is a topic that we have devoted considerable attention to; note the article linked on the left. Our article treats the topic from a number of perspectives, but most fundamentally, we think that in the contemporary American context, at least, "income inequality" is a very good thing. In fact, it is another word for opportunity. This is, however, not the conventional view, so I groaned when I saw this headline in the Jerusalem Post: "A cure for income inequality." The article itself, however, is a very pleasant surprise. Check it out. Here is the conclusion: "The key to equity--ethnic and otherwise--is to democratize economic opportunity by shrinking government to spur economic growth." There is hope for Israel's economy after all.

Our reader Dick Benesh has thoughtfully forwarded an on-the-scene report provided by the "alternative" Minneapolis weekly City Pages of the DFL election eve party last week. Courtesy of the City Pages account, you can almost feel the gloom descending. Dick regrets he wasn't there to enjoy it. Submitted for your consideration, an article that brings new meaning to the term Schadenfreude: "Wasn't that a party."

Key quote: "On election night the Democratic Party--in characteristic ass-backward fashion--wound up holding its wake for Paul Wellstone a week after the funeral. The evening made for grim spectacle almost from the beginning. By 9:30 there was a palpable sense of dread in the room, accompanied by a pervasive reek from what I hoped was neglected cheese trays." On second thought, maybe Dick's better off having enjoyed the party vicariously.

As expected, Iraq has replied to the United Nations' ultimatum by agreeing to the return of weapons inspectors. The full text of the Iraqi letter to the Secretary General is available here. The letter is long, rambling, abusive and incoherent. It begins like this:

"You may recall the huge clamor fabricated by the President of the United States administration, in the biggest and most wicked slander against Iraq, supported in malicious intent, and spearheaded in word and malevolence, by his lackey Tony Blair..." and goes on in similar style for a number of pages.

The two portions of the letter containing the commitment to permit the return of the inspectors are gothic in tone and hedged with apparent qualifiers:

"Dealing with the inspectors, the government of Iraq will also take into consideration their way of conduct, the intentions of those who are ill-intentioned among them and their improper approach in showing respect to the people's national dignity, their independence and security, and their country's security, independence and sovereignty. We are eager to see them perform their duties in accordance with the international law as soon as possible. If they do so, professionally, and lawfully, without any premeditated intentions, the liar's lies will be exposed to public opinion and the declared objective of the Security Council will be achieved."

And this: "We hereby inform you that we will deal with resolution 1441, despite its bad contents, if it is to be implemented according to the premeditated evil of the parties of ill-intent, the important thing in this is trying to spare our people from harm. But we will not forget, nor should others do, that safeguarding our people's dignity, security, independence, and protecting our country, its sovereignty and sublime values, is as sacred a duty in our leadership's and government's agenda. Therefore, and as we said in the foresaid agreement and press statement, we are prepared to receive the inspectors, so that they can carry out their duties, and make sure that Iraq has not developed weapons of mass destruction during their absence since 1998."

The overall impression created by Iraq's letter is that the inmates are firmly in control of the asylum. Now begins a dance of obfuscation which, despite its deadly seriousness, will frequently be characterized by low comedy.

More on Minnesota's Angry Humorist, and Much More: Hugh Hewitt's latest WorldNetDaily column picks up on the unfunny one, and other cranky liberals: "The graceless aging of Donahue, Moyers and Keillor."

Hot off the press, courtesy of a reader: John Thune has announced that he will not seek a recount. So Johnson's victory stands. Of course, if the South Dakota voters had known Dashcle and Johnson were destined to be in the minority, Thune would have won easily.

South Dakota update: A reader has informed us that the canvass process that is automatically triggered in a close election is now complete, and John Thune gained four votes through the canvass. Thune's campaign told our reader that they have not yet decided whether to pursue a recount.

The Jerusalem Post reports that the suspect in Sunday night's massacre at an Israeli kibbutz is Sirhan Sirhan, thought to be a distant cousin of the Palenstinian who assassinated Robert Kennedy in 1968. The original Sirhan Sirhan was motivated by RFK's support of Israel. The current terrorist is believed to be named in honor of his illustrious cousin.

We at Power Line can't get enough of Mark Steyn. Here, from The Spectator is more from Steyn on last week's elections. On the Maryland gubernatorial race: "Kennedy-wise, the torch hasn't passed to a new generation; it's been all but extinguished." On the Wellstone death rally: "To those watching at home, it looked like hidden-camera footage from a inside a particularly insane cult." And, "the Minnesota memorial gave us the religious Left: they don't believe in God, they believe in politics: the Democratic party is their church, Wellstone their latest martyr, and the campaign a crusade. They couldn't have been any freakier if they'd been speaking in tongues." Thanks to reader Joshua Sharf for calling this one to my attention.

Yes, Rocket Man, I recalled our blog on the then-upcoming Egyptian series. Every indication was that it would be grossly anti-Semitic. What I wanted to suggest last night was that, now that the show is actually airing, and the Egyptian government has gone on record as saying it isn't anti-Semitic, and the State Department has vouched for six episodes, the competing claims about the show can be tested. If, as seems likely, the Egyptian government and the State Department are dissembling, they can be exposed.

The Washington Times reports that federal authorities are investigating whether John Muhammad and John Malvo were members of a radical Muslim sect called Jamaat al-Fuqra, which has been responsible for numerous murders and firebombings. The most intriguing aspect of this possible connection is that the group owns a commune in Red House, Virginia, just thirty miles south of Lynchburg. The FBI is investigating whether Muhammad and Malvo used the Red House commune as a hideout during their murder spree.

Steve Sailer is a paragon of political incorrectness and a formidable analyst of electoral demographics. Here's his final take on the results of November 5: "Whites, not Latinos, win for GOP."

Michael Kelly thinks the Democrats have come to believe their own malarkey. Unlike many liberals, Kelly can accurately observe the evidence before his eyes and seems to have a great deal of fun describing it in "The democratic mistake."

Our faithful reader Peter Swanson is no fan of racial profiling--he joins us in disputing whether it exists where it is usually alleged to exist--but Peter has detected what he believes to be a bona fide example of racial profiling via this WorldNetDaily column: "Chief Moose cost lives."

No one has better defense and intelligence sources than the reporters at the Washington Times, so Rowan Scarborough's story this morning reads like a genuine preview of coming attractions: "War plan calls for air strikes."

It would seem impossible to make us any happier that Norm Coleman pulled out his race against Walter Mondale, but this morning's paper did it. Mondale's mad dash for cash is spelled out in detail in this fascinating story from the St. Paul Pioneer Press, featuring every one of the usual suspects--Terry McAuliffe, Deacon's partner Vernon Jordan, Steven Spielberg and the Hollywood gang, Hillary Clinton, and the trial lawyers at Minneapolis's Robins Kaplan firm. The story is "Mondale raised millions in days."

Preliminary indications from U.S. officials are that the bin Laden audio tape is authentic. If so, contrary to the position I have long taken, he isn't dead after all. Time will tell, but if the voice is bin Laden's, my view that he was killed in December of last year will be proved wrong. That would be too bad, but on the positive side, it would provide a real incentive for American troops to hunt him down and kill him.

It appears that President Bush's homeland security bill will pass, maybe as soon as tomorrow. As reported in the Washington Post, the current bill is virtually identical to what the Administration had previously proposed. It is being supported by three "centrist" Senators, one Republican and two Democrats. The bill also includes authorization for commercial airline pilots to be armed. The American Federation of Government Employees didn't like the bill, a good sign.

Wait a minute, Deacon--this is the Egyptian TV series we blogged on several weeks ago, which is based on the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion"--to suggest that this is not anti-Semitic is absurd, as the original descriptions of the series made clear. The State Department has reviewed, apparently, six out of forty-one episodes, but it strains credulity to claim that so far, they are free of anti-Jewish sentiment. Maybe last week's election returns will embolden the Administration to clean house at the State Department. Having said that, I confess that I have no idea how feasible it is to throw out entrenched Foggy Bottom bureaucrats. This is a civil service issue, I guess, so for the foreseeable future the State Department will probably continue to be an embarrassment.

Deacon, according to the weekly Forward, "Riding an Electoral Wave, GOP Jews Say Their Time Has Come." On that happy note, I say good night.

The Jerusalem Post reports that the Egyptian government has assured the U.S. State Department that there is no anti-Semitic content in a 41-part series that the Anti-Defamation League has described as "a very troubling manifestation of anti-Jewish incitement." Moreover, the State Department itself reportedly found no anti-Semitic material in the first six episodes of the series. I do not know at this time whether the Egyptian representations are truthful and whether the State Department's conclusion is reasonable. One would like, at least, to credit our own government. However, Trunk's reporting on past State Department cover-ups on behalf of Arafat invites skepticism. This story may be worth keeping an eye on.

Several readers have gently told me that I need not be alarmed about the U.N. resolution. They assure me that Presdent Bush ultimately will do what is necessary in Iraq. Some suggest that he is actually "playing" the U.N. I agree that, far more likely than not, President Bush will do what needs to be done regardless of the outcome of the "process" the U.N. has established. What bothers me is that we have already given France, Russia, et al. more say about how things will be than we should have. Left to our own devices, I don't believe we'd be going through the inspections drill again. So we may spend the next few months advancing the U.N.'s agenda, not our own. I find this disturbing, even if everything comes out right in the end. I've also been concerned that, at the end of the process, our actions may well be less popular at home than if we had not undertaken the latest inspection regime. If Hans Blix can't find a clear violation, or pretends that he can't, the case for action may seem less compelling to some of our citizens than it does now. I recognize, however, that there are scenarios under which doing the inspection dance could make our subsequent action more popular. I'm not astute enough to figure out how this aspect will play out. So, I guess my real objection is to the principle of the thing.

We are huge fans and admirers of Ben Stein for many reasons. The more I learn about him, and the more I read his stuff, the more I like him. I sincerely wish I had been able to avail myself of his current advice regarding "how to ruin your life" when it could have done me some good. Through sheer good luck I have come across the University of Wisconsin Daily Cardinal's account of Stein's speech before an audience of 2,000 students (!) in Madison last night: "Ben Stein wins audience." Don't miss it!

The photo below is of Gennifer Flowers, taken in 1994 when she was reprising Marilyn Monroe's "Happy birthday Mr. President" shtick for a comedy TV show. Ms. Flowers is newsworthy because a federal appellate court has just reinstated her defamation lawsuit against Hillary Clinton, George Stephanopolous and James Carville. They claimed that she doctored the audiotapes she made of her telephone conversations with Bill Clinton. She obviously didn't--Clinton apologized to Mario Cuomo for calling him a "mafiosi" on one of her recordings--but it's much too late to matter...on the other hand, can you think of three people you'd more like to see lose a defamation case than Hillary Clinton, George Stephanopolous and James Carville? I'd take that one for free. But as the Trunk and Deacon already know, I'm really posting on this so I can repeat one of my favorite lines of all time: Gennifer Flowers on a TV interview show, during her 1992 travails, saying: "Whoever it was who said, 'You will know the truth and the truth will make you free,' was full of s***." Um, I believe that was Jesus. You can take the girl out of Sunday School, but you can't take the Sunday School out of the girl. Not entirely, anyway. Congratulations, Gennifer, and good luck.

Thanks for posting the full poll results, Rocket Man. If the voters are having second thoughts about handing control to the Republicans, they're doing a good job of concealing them. Your theory on why the Republican numbers are so high right now has merit too, it seems to me. I've always thought that the Republicans would profit from running advertisements on selected issues during periods when there are no races in progress. Sometimes "special interest groups" will take care of this. Recall the devastating ad campaign against "Clinton Care." But this is the exception. Obviously, when it comes to the Party footing the bill, the costs are so high that it will always seem that the resources are better husbanded for the high election season. But suppose, hypothetically, that the Democratic stall tactics on homeland security had occurred in 2001 instead of 2002. Since the media was not about to cover this in an informative matter, wouldn't it have been worthwhile, at both a moral and a political level, to call this to the attention of the American people through advertising? Parties can be defined during non-election years too. President Bush defined himself in 2001 under circumstances when the media had no choice but to allow the American people to notice. Under more normal circumstances, "off-year defining" will not be free, but may be worth the cost.

By the way, here is one theory on why the Republicans' numbers are so high right now. For the last two months, Americans have been watching and listening to commercials in which Republican candidates directly communicate their own views. This is a departure from the normal practice, when voters learn about Republicans only through the mediation of Democratic reporters, editors, TV news people, etc. When people actually hear from Republicans, they tend to respond positively. This explains why Democrats are so enthusiastic about campaign finance "reform:" Republicans, unlike Democrats, have to pay for the ability to compete with the mainstream media.

Deacon cited some of the data from the latest CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll in his post earlier today, but the poll results are worth viewing in full. The poll was taken in the days immediately following the election, so there may be an element of after-glow, but the results are horrific for the Democrats. Here are just a few highlights:

President Bush's job approval is back up to 68%.
The Republican Party has a 54% favorable, 38% unfavorable rating, compared to the Democrats' 48%/42%.
By a 50%/42% margin, the Republicans do have a clear plan for solving the country's problems; by a 30%/60% margin, the Democrats do not have a clear plan.
By a 53%/40% margin, Americans think it is a good thing for the economy that the Republicans control both the Presidency and Congress.
60% of Democrats say the Democrats in Congress should support President Bush either more than they have so far (22%) or the same as they have been ( 38%). Only 37% of Democrats say they should oppose him more.
And finally: nothwithstanding approximately twelve million Democratic scare commercials, by a 57% to 40% margin, Americans favor reforming Social Security to allow workers to invest a portion of their payroll taxes in personal retirement accounts--a percentage that was not even dented by the campaign. And 64% support, while only 29% oppose, making the Bush tax cuts permanent.

Yikes. The Democrats had better hope those numbers are transitory.

More on Minnesota's Angry Humorist, and Much More: Our friend and faithful reader Bruce Sanborn is the chairman of the Claremont Institute. Bruce's post-election recap on the results in Minnesota is hot off the press.

In his piece, Bruce surveys the Minnesota landscape and finds three notable winners from last week's results: George W. Bush, the Taxpayers' League, and our friend Brian Sullivan. Bruce also takes note of one conspicuous loser, the angry humorist to whom he alludes in the title of his terrific piece: "Woebegone in Minnesota?"

We never miss the weekly New York Post column of the incomparable Daniel Pipes. Today's is "Profs who hate America."

We have some catching up to do with our Mark Steyn columns. Here's his latest, out this morning: "Remembrance Day in Trudeaupia."

Byron York of National Review Online on new polls that show "widespread repudiation of the [Democrats'] approach to terrorism, and virtually everything else." According to the numbers York cites, 64 percent of the public said that the Republicans are tough enough on terrorism, while 27 percent said they aren't tough enough. But only 34 percent said the Democrats are tough enough, while 57 percent said they aren't sufficiently tough. Other results are also discouraging for the Democrats, but for the foreseeable future, it's the terrorism numbers they will have to reverse in order to get back into the game. As I have suggested, this is a difficult mission, should they choose to accept it. The Democrats' jockeying on national security issues this year has created an impression that may be almost as lasting as the opposite impression President Bush created in the weeks after September 11.

Stephen Hayes of the Weekly Standard gives his take on Bill Moyers' temper tantrum. Hayes no longer thinks that Moyers should be evicted from Public Television. Instead, he thinks Moyers should have a daily show. "The tragedy of Bill Moyers is that very few people watch him these days. Nothing would be more helpful to the 'right-wingers' Moyers so despises than to give him a bigger platform."

We had somehow missed the latest from our favorite, Mark Steyn: "Dubya does it his way."

Speaking of Garrison Keillor's bizarre attack on Norm Coleman--that is to say, while we're on the subject of bitter, washed-up lefties about whose opinion on one gives a damn--here is the piece by Bill Moyers on PBS that has been roundly condemned in conservative circles. To me, the most striking thing about both articles is the sheer, malignant hatred that shines through in each. Moyers at least purports to deal with public policy rather than character assassination, but his assertions are even wackier than Keillor's. According to Moyers, the President's "right wing agenda" includes "using the taxing power to transfer wealth from working people to the rich." Huh? What in the world is he talking about? I guess he means not transferring as much wealth from "the rich" (an epithet that generally refers to hard-working people) to "working people" (a euphemism that frequently refers to non-working people) as he would prefer. Likewise, the "agenda" includes "giving corporations a free hand to eviscerate the environment..." The evidence for which he doesn't bother to mention. "And if you like God in government, get ready for the Rapture." For those who may not keep up with these matters, the "Rapture" is, in some of the less orthodox Protestant theologies, an aspect of the Second Coming of Christ. In the context of the Bush Administration, however, what on God's green earth is he talking about? It is deeply depressing that this is what liberalism has come to. Moyers was once considered an intellectual; Keillor was once considered a humorist. Now they are embarrassing has-beens--which, however, does not make them ineligible for continued receipt of your tax dollars. Let's see--Moyers is rich, and I'm not.....Maybe if Moyers were booted off PBS, he would be happy that the taxing power is no longer being misused to transfer wealth from hard-working people like me to rich people like him. Let's give it a try.

HonestReporting.com identifies the latest outrages in media coverage of Israel. For example, Time Magazine featured as one of its cartoons of the week a drawing from the Daytona Beach News entitled "Which Nukes Are You Most Afraid Of?" The candidates were North Korea, Iran, Iraq, al Qaeda, and Israel. And Maureen Dowd of the New York Times reported without critical comment the libelous and wholly fictitious claim of a Saudi deputy minister of education that Israeli math textbooks include questions such as, if you kill 10 Arabs one day and 12 the next, what is the total. HonestReporting also reprints an article by Alan Dershowitz in the National Post of Canada denouncing the mounting efforts on college campuses to treat Israel as a pariah state. Dershowitz is no hero at Power Line, but this piece is worth reading.

David Brooks of the Weekly Standard believes that, appearances to the contrary, the Democrats will not "jump off the cliff" by embracing Nancy Pelosi style San Francisco liberalism. Brooks expects Democrats to try and gain some credibility on national defense and offer a tax cut program that focuses on payroll taxes. The first point is the key. As Brooks says, as long as voters don't trust Democrats to be tough on terrorism, it doesn't matter what the party says about anything else. I agree with Brooks that many Democrats recognize this, but this trust will have to be earned, and I'm not sure the Democrats are up to it.

Michelle Malkin on the refusal of the mainstream media to cover the Wichita Massacre, a crime spree by two black males that ended in the execution style murders of four white victims. By contrast, Malkin notes that comparable savagery against politically correct victims -- for example, the horrific James Byrd dragging case in Texas and the murder of Matthew Shepard in Wyoming -- garners front-page headlines and continuous media coverage.

Today, while driving home through the Baltimore area, I caught some election commentary on WBAL, an all-news radio station. According to the WBAL news folks, citing exit polls, Republican Bob Ehrlich captured 50 percent of the Jewish vote in the Baltimore area, and between 35 and 40 percent statewide. Three possible reasons were offered for Ehrlich's strong showing among Jews in the Baltimore area: his support of Israel, his support of school choice (this played well with the fairly substantial Orthodox community), and some local flap that I didn't really understand. There was also speculation that Ehrlich prospered with voters generally as a result of Maryland's equivalent of the Wellstone death rally, namely the Townsend debate rally. This occurred when Ehrlich debated Townsend at predominantly black Morgan State University in an event sponsored by the NAACP. It was their only debate, and I thought when he agreed to the debate that it was a mistake on Ehrlich's part to debate on what likely would be hostile terrain. In fact, the audience was hostile to Ehrlich, passed oreo cookies around to ridicule his black running mate, and Townsend carried the crowd with a rousing defense of affirmative action. Although the big newspapers all said Townsend won the debate hands-down, it is now thought that the debate rally didn't play very well with the television audience. It is pleasant to think that Democrats are losing not only on the merits but because they simply can't behave themselves.

More on Minnesota's Angry Humorist: The New York Post's Page Six column calls him an effete egghead, but that doesn't quite capture it. (Thanks to Mrs. Rocket Man for pointing out the item to us.) Here's the Page Six item on the unfunny one:

"Being a losing leftist in Minnesota has Garrison Keillor gnashing his teeth in impotent rage. After Norm Coleman soundly trounced Walter Mondale in the U.S. Senate race, Keillor launched a limp attack on the senator-elect on salon.com. Recalling a dinner party in St. Paul at which then-mayor Coleman gave a speech about native son F. Scott Fitzgerald, Keillor snipes, '[It] was soon clear to anyone who has ever graded ninth-grade book reports that the mayor had never read Fitzgerald,' reports the Washington Post."

Faithful readers of the Power Line know that as a teen-ager I studied poltitical philosophy at the feet of the master, Bob Dylan. In his great song "Ballad of a Thin Man," Dylan snarled the following lines as the ultimate condemnation of a pretentious know-nothing. It never seemed like quite so perfect a put-down until now:

"You've been through all of
F. Scott Fitzgerald's books
You're very well read
It's well known

Because something is happening here
But you don't know what it is
Do you, Mister Jones?"

Debate has long raged among Dylanologists regarding the identity of Dylan's "Mister Jones." Now we know.

We haven't posted on the Bali bombing lately, but the authorities in Indonesia appear to be doing a good job of rolling up the murderers. As expected, the plot centered on Islamic cleric Abu Bakar Bashir. Check out this account in the Sydney Morning Herald. So far, viewed simply as criminal conspirators, the Islamofascists haven't been particularly competent.

Our fellow Claremont fellow Mackubin Thomas Owens is a great American, a Vietnam vet, a former Marine platoon leader, and current professor of strategy at the Naval War College. His "Nothing Sweeter: Reflections on Veterans Day, 2002" provides the kind of tribute to those who have served that we want to pay today. Please do take a look.

Dean Barkley was appointed by Jesse Ventura to serve the unexpired portion of Paul Wellstone's term. Initially, Ventura leaned toward appointing another Democrat, but after the Wellstone pep rally (at which he was booed), Ventura announced his intention to appoint someone from his Independence Party. Barkley is one of a handful of actual members of that party. Today, he announced that he will remain independent and not caucus with either party. The practical effect of this is that Daschle will remain in control of the Senate's agenda during the lame-duck session. Barkley can't be blamed for maintaining his independent status, but I'll predict that he will vote with the Democrats. In Minnesota, at least, if you scratch an independent you nearly always find a Democrat.

Here is a report on the latest outrage by Arab terrorists in Israel. A terrorist attacked a kibbutz and killed five people before escaping; the dead include a mother and her two sons, aged four and five, to whom she was reading a bedtime story when the attacker burst in and shot them all. The kibbutz is described as "dovish;" its members are supporters of a Palestinian state who were proud of their "good relations" with the Arabs.

More good news from Georgia, as the realignment continues.

Let's hear it for Romania. (Thanks to James Taranto.) The political and cultural variety of Europe raise again the question why anyone would take seriously the right of France or Russia to veto our (and presumably anyone else's) foreign policy.

Forgive us for blowing our own horn this morning, but our friends at the invaluable RealClearPolitics site have run my post-election retrospective on the Star Tribune's Minnesota Poll: "The Trouble with the Star Trib Poll." In my original draft of the piece, I thought I was being clever when I titled it "A Study in Scarlet (Faces)." But, in truth, although I think they should, I don't think the folks at the Strib do in fact feel embarrassed.

National Review Online now features David Frum's Diary. In his most recent entry, Frum detects a pattern that applies to President Bush's foreign policy moves:

Step 1: Bush threatens to go it alone.
Step 2: Liberals and foreign allies holler.
Step 3: Threatened with irrelevance, Congress/the UN/the Arab
League/the IMF offers to do 80% of what Bush wants.
Step 4: Bush reluctantly agrees to work with Congress/the UN/the
Arab League/the IMF.
Step 5: Admiring articles about Colin Powell appear in the New
York Times.
Step 6: Conservatives panic.
Step 7: Bush does precisely what he intended to do from the very
beginning.

The Jerusalem Post reports that European Foreign Affairs Commissioner Chris Patten has turned down a request by a European legislator to investigate whether "European aid to the Palestinians, currently running at 10 million euros a month, is being diverted to fund terrorist activity." Patten said that he wants this issue investigated "like a hole in the head."

The Trunk talked about the Minneapolis Star Tribune's Minnesota Poll in one of his posts today, but he modestly refrained from pointing out that he has dissected that poll and exposed its shortcomings in a series of posts on this site over the last several weeks. The Strib's poll, which does not follow conventional polling procedures but instead relies on a secret formula to slice and dice the data it collects, has been consistently wrong over a period of years. It has a horrible record, if we assume that its purposes are to accurately reflect the state of the electorate and to predict the outcome of elections. Yet despite its repeated failures, the Strib's poll has not reformed its methods. It continues to crank out "data" that exaggerate the extent of Democratic support in every race, by a margin of five or more percentage points. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the Strib does not intend its poll to be accurate, but rather intends it to support the Democratic Party. If the Strib does not reform its methods in the wake of this year's debacle, that conclusion will be inescapable.

Before we move on from post-election commentary, there is one question I am curious about: Where is Mark Dayton? I don't mean this in a figurative sense. I actually am wondering about his physical whereabouts. Dayton was elected to the Senate two years ago, mainly on the basis of his immense personal fortune. He has not distinguished himself in any way, either before or after his election. But he is, after all, a United States Senator. One would normally expect him to be in evidence during an election, even though he is not running this year--stumping for other candidates, giving interviews to the press, appearing at rallies, whatever. Yet this year, Dayton has been completely AWOL. To my knowledge, he has made no public appearances during this election season. He never appeared with Paul Wellstone or, later, with Walter Mondale. He did not attend Wellstone's memorial service. I heard that this was because he was in Europe, but what in the world was he doing in Europe in October and November of an election year? And why didn't he return for the service? Since the election, Dayton's silence has continued; maybe I missed it, but I haven't seen him quoted anywhere. Dayton is such a cipher that, I am embarrassed to admit, I hadn't even noticed his absence until I heard a caller on a local radio show ask where he was and why he hadn't been seen in public since the last legislative session ended. Maybe this is all just an indication of what a marginal player Dayton is, but I suspect there may be something stranger behind it.

One of the least edifying forms of post-election commentary is the predictable flurry of articles on the theme that George Bush isn't dumb after all. This is the third or fourth time we have seen a round of articles about what a mistake it is to underestimate Bush because, contrary to popular belief, he really isn't stupid. This specimen from the Washington Post is typical. Even though I've linked to it, I don't particularly recommend that you read it, since it says nothing new and this whole subject is a bore. "Dumb" is not really a meaningful concept in American politics; it is merely an epithet that Democrats call Republicans. Lincoln, the first Republican President, was widely regarded as a moron. Democratic newspapers depicted him as a gorilla with his knuckles scraping the ground. They apparently failed to notice that Lincoln was one of the most brilliant men who have ever participated in public life in this or any other country. Lincoln was only the beginning. Grant, one of the great military geniuses of world history, was dumb. Coolidge was dumb. Eisenhower, who organized the grandest and most complicated endeavor in human history, the re-conquest of Western Europe, was dumb. Ronald Reagan, the most important and most successful President of the 20th century, was dumb. Dan Quayle is dumb; a liberal joked that Quayle--a graduate of college and law school, a Congressman and Senator who at the time was the Vice-President of the United States--thought they spoke Latin in Latin America, and liberal reporters repeated the yarn as fact, apparently without noticing its utter absurdity. Now George Bush is dumb. All I can say is, welcome to the club. I don't know why it is that Republicans never seem to label Democrats as "dumb," even when the term would seem to apply. Based on academic performance, Ted Kennedy and Al Gore are dumb. Robert Byrd is an idiot, as far as I can tell. Mark Dayton--about whom more later--is utterly without mental talent. But for whatever reason, Republicans don't seem to think that calling their opponents "dumb" is particularly helpful. It's just as well, as American voters have demonstrated a commendable indifference to this particular form of attack. As of today, President Bush bestrides the earth (or globe? I forget) like a colossus, but I'm sure that next time he scores another stunning victory, we'll be reading more articles that tell us, breathlessly, that he isn't so dumb after all.

Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution provides the liberal perspective on the U.N. resolution on Iraq. Essentially, he is delighted because he thinks, as I do, that with the inspection regime in place Bush will either not go to war or will go to war with less support than he otherwise would have had. Here's O'Hanlon's key sentence is: "Once they begin, successful inspections will develop a momentum of their own -- especially if they can provide good assurances that Iraq's nuclear program, the hardest to hide from inspectors, has been arrested." Apparently, O'Hanlon believes that inspections can be "successful" whether or not they provide good assurances that Iraq's nuclear program has been arrested. For liberals like O'Hanlon, the important thing is that the inspection "process" (or in other contexts, the "peace process") takes on a life of its own and becomes a substitute for action. Whether or not the process actually accomplishes its stated purpose is secondary.

Matt Drudge linked to this Time article about a poll by former Clinton pollster Mark Penn which suggests that the Wellstone pep rally hurt Democrats not only in Minnesota, but nationally. Penn found that 68% of voters knew about the memorial service, and a remarkable 67% of independents said it made them less likely to vote for a Democrat. Even more important, however, is that 65% of respondents said that the Democrats have not been supportive enough of the war on terror. So much for the theory, apparently prevalent among Democrats and their supporters, that they lost because they failed to take on President Bush aggressively enough.

I had missed the column by the great Mark Steyn with his take on the election: "The Dems are looking like Wile E. Coyote." Great quote: "If Bush is too dumb to be President, how dumb do you have to be to be consistently outwitted by him?"

I caught the column this morning thanks to the excellent Ashbrook Center blog "No Left Turns," a blog that features the commentary of several of our Claremont-related friends such as Steve Hayward, author of The Age of Reagan.

This morning's Pioneer Press carries a retrospective on the Mondale/Coleman and Minnesota gubernatorial races that is also worth reading: "Poll shows independents tipped scales to GOP."

William Tucker is a smart guy and a good writer. I always learn something from reading his pieces. This morning's New York Post carries his excellent column, "What Dems don't get."

In the column, Tucker recounts how he used to be a liberal Democrat until he learned from observations involving his own personal experience. Conservatives generally seem to be capable of learning something valuable from their own lives and from the evidence before their eyes. My paradigm example is Ronald Reagan, a former liberal Democrat who learned a thing or two about Communism grappling with Communists in hand to hand combat as president of the Screen Actors Guild. Similarly, George W. Bush seems to have learned something important personally from overcoming the temptations of alcohol. More important, he seems to have learned something politically from observing the multi-dimensional political success of Ronald Reagan.

Contrast these examples with Walter Mondale. Here's a guy who has spent a life at the furthest reaches of American politics, and yet seems to have learned literally nothing from the experience. To hear him talk, the catastrophes of the Carter years hit like plagues sent from heaven, having nothing to do with the policies of his own administration.

The relentless liberal condescension first to Reagan and now to Bush seems to me to represent the opposite of the truth. Reagan and Bush share a kind of genius for absorbing the lessons of their experience. Liberals, on the other hand, do not seem to have the ability to learn anything from their own errors.

Eric Black writes the Star Tribune's long post-election recap on the Mondale/Coleman race. The story is interesting and done well. It seems to me that Black makes a good faith effort to get it right. The details of which I have some knowledge, such as the Saturday meeting between Mondale and his brain trust in which the decision to run was made, are right.

It is not clear to me how a bit political player like David Lillehaug always manages to make himself a protagonist in stories like this. The guy has a genius for self-promotion that is beyond belief. In this story he appears by the third paragraph, and his debate memorandum to Mondale is quoted about halfway through the story. No one appears to be claiming credit for advising Mondale to call Coleman "Norman" during the debate. In any event, the story is worth reading:"13 Days: Behind the scenes of Minnesot'a historic election."

This morning's Star Tribune also reports the results of a Minnesota Poll taken November 6-8: "Once strongly pro-DFL, Minnesota sliding to right." The poll results are contained in a graphic in PDF format that you can download by clicking on the small graphic in the text of the story.

The text of the story has the following key paragraph: "The poll confirmed the shift toward the GOP detected by the Star Tribune's tracking polls in the days just before the election. Forty-four percent of voters identified themselves as Republicans, 41 percent said they were DFLers and 15 percent called themselves independents -- a smaller number than in past elections." I do not recall any hint of such "tracking polls" previously appearing in the Star Tribune. Moreover, the story makes no attempt to reconcile the post-election poll with every pre-election Minnesota Poll that the paper did report.

You might say that the Star Tribune alludes to what I believe were the inaccuracies of its Minnesota Poll by reprinting a story from last week's Wall Street Journal: "Why some pollsters got it so wrong on election day." That story has the following account of the doings in Minnesota: "The Minnesota Senate race, rocked by the death of Sen. Paul Wellstone, was the scene of one of the most striking polling disparities of all. On Nov. 3, two days before the election, the Star Tribune Minnesota Poll showed former Vice President Walter Mondale leading Republican Norm Coleman by 46 to 41 percent. The same day, a St. Paul Pioneer Press survey conducted by Mason-Dixon showed a nearly perfect reverse image: Coleman 47 percent, Mondale 41 percent.

"Factoring in the margin of error for each poll, both surveys showed a race too close to call, says Lawrence Jacobs, a professor of political science at the University of Minnesota. Yet they left opposing impressions about the contest, which Coleman won by 3 percentage points.

"(The Star Tribune Minnesota Poll continued interviewing on Sunday and Monday before the election. It found a highly volatile electorate in the race. The Sunday and Monday polling found an electorate evenly split between Mondale and Coleman.)

"Mondale campaign spokesman Jim Farrell says the fast-moving swirl of emotion after Wellstone's death, a much-politicized memorial service and an election-eve debate made polling difficult."

The parenthetical sentences in the penultimate paragraph above are the Star Tribune's insert into the Wall Street Journal story. We apparently are not going to get a more extensive explanation from the paper about the discrepancy between the Star Tribune Minnesota Poll's final published pre-election results and the electoral outcome.

Bill Kristol and Robert Kagan on the U.N. Trap. As Kristol and Kagan demonstrate, "the inspections process on which we are to embark is a trap. It may well be one that this powerful and determined president can get out of, but it is a trap nonetheless." Under the U.N. Resolution, President Bush is obliged to participate in another U.N. debate before he uses troops. Thus, France has succeeded in getting the "two-step" process it demanded all along. Ultimately, Bush can go ahead and invade Iraq without the blessing of the Security Council, but he has always been free to do this. As Kristol and Kagan suggest, after dancing with the U.N. this long, it may be more difficult for Bush to ignore the U.N. down the road than it would have been to ignore it earlier on. Suppose Saddam does a little dancing too, and is able to provide enough access to satisfy Hans Blix (who doesn't want a war any more than his Security Council backers do) without enabling the inspectors to find a smoking gun. Under these circumstances, won't Bush face more substantial resistance to using force to effectuate regime change than if he had just proceeded with the invasion straight away? Kristol and Kagan remain confident that, at the appropriate time, President Bush will "thank the U.N. and our 'allies' for their efforts, and order his military to get about the urgent business of removing Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq." I share their confidence. But it would have been better to retain control of our foreign policy all along than to cede control to France, Russia, and Hans Blix, only to take it back after months of delay, assuming that we do.

Speaking of the Jerusalem Post, Deacon, you won't see many American newspapers giving President Bush his due any time soon, but here is the Post's editorial titled "A Stunning Display of Leadership". That pretty well sums it up.

The excellent Bret Stephens of the Jerusalem Post on the U.S. elections and the wrong-headedness of campaign finance reform efforts.

The controversy over leaked photos of terrorists being transported on board a C-130 by American troops is covered by the Washington Post. The pictures, apparently taken by an American serviceman on board the flight, were sent to radio talk show host Art Bell, who posted them on his website. The pictures are disturbing, and the government is apparently not happy with their disclosure. On the whole, however, I think it may be good for images like these to be circulated, especially in the Arab world. The rise of Islamofascism has been fueled by a spirit of triumphalism resulting from the U.S. government's feeble response to terrorist attacks after 1992. While most Americans were barely aware of al Qaeda and similar organizations and paid little attention to their attacks, the Islamists thought they were winning what to them was an all-out war. As a supplement to America's current strong military response to terrorism, images of terrorists being defeated and humiliated should help deflate the Islamofascists and cause potential supporters to melt away. It is success that breeds enthusiasm, not failure. And in this war, crudeness is no liability. Remember that the terrorists use video footage of the decapitation of Daniel Pearl as a recruiting tool. One of the bootlegged photos is shown below.

We are late getting on to the story of the execrable Garrison Keillor and his hysterical jeremiad on Minnesota's election of Norm Coleman to the United States Senate (Mrs. Rocket Man has sicced us on it). Keillor calls his piece "Empty victory for a hollow man."

Blogger Mitch Berg has written an open letter to Keillor that he has posted on his terrific site, "A Shot in the Dark." Here's an excerpt from Mitch's eloquent open letter:

"Baby-boomers, at least those who spend their declining years pining for Camelot, caterwaul endlessly about wanting to find 'joy' and 'heroism' in politics. And yet, how could one look further than Norm Coleman, the most joyfully political man in Minnesota politics today? The man who was...well, not heroic, but certainly above-and-beyond the call in the way he revitalized St. Paul. Not that that wasn't without problems - we're on the hook for the Excel Energy Center, and I really detest subsidizing pro sports. But he did a fabulous job - not that fellow St. Paulite Keillor would admit it.

"Beyond that, though - we don't need joy or heroism in the Senate - because that means people are having too much fun doing that job, or that there are crises that must be solved. Do the job. Keep things out of trouble. Then go home. That's all I ask.

"And that's why we benighted slobs elected the apparently soulless, joyless bag of skin, Norm Coleman, over the joy-sotted Walter Mondale."

Someone really needs to write an essay on the degeneration of humor in the hands of liberal moralists like Keillor. We reserve our thoughts on that subject for another day.

The always-fascinating Debka File writes that American, British and Iranian special forces have been battling Iraqi troops for the last two weeks in southeastern Iraq. Debka File says the plan is for the allied troops to complete the encirclement of Iraq's southern oilfields within sixty days, so that by the time the new inspection team submits its report, the US-led forces will be in position to seize the Khozistan oilfields immediately. This mirrors the situation already established in the north, according to Debka File. If this analysis is correct, President Bush's strategy is to be poised to move decisively against Saddam Hussein the moment the inspectors report lack of compliance with the latest U.N. resolution. Seizure of both the northern and southern oilfields will inevitably, the thinking is said to go, lead to the downfall of Saddam. Maybe, but my guess is that the Administration will not wait for a coup, and that part of the plan will be to move directly against Saddam with lightning speed. I think the campaign will be stunningly swift. Is anyone betting against President Bush these days? Not me. Debka File says that Saddam has sought to slow down the American advance and make aerial observation more difficult by setting fire to the southeastern Iraqi marshes, which, I take it, contain plenty of oil. The photo below shows the burning marshes.

With the election over, a principal focus of this blog will again be the war against the Islamofascists. Yesterday Ronald Noble, the head of Interpol, warned that

"All intelligence experts are agreed that al Qaeda is preparing a major terrorist operation, simultaneous attacks that would not target the United States alone but several countries at the same time.

"The field of battle now stretches to all countries and mobilises several terrorist groups."

Noble also said that he believes Osama bin Laden is alive. He offered no particular evidence to support this conclusion; of course, that doesn't necessarily mean he doesn't have any.

Thomas Sowell on what happens now that the Republicans control the Senate. Noting that no president can fight, much less win, every battle, Sowell identifies the ones he considers most important. The courts are at the top of his list, along with national security issues, because of the influence they exert on such key matters as immigration and racial quotas.

The Pioneer Press has more on the Sara Jane Olson plea deal: "Olson, SLA peers met deadline." And more on the Rick Kahn eulogy: "Wellstone eulogizer has no regrets." Given the inconsistencies in, and the implausibility of, Kahn's comments, my favorite part of the Pioneer Press story is this: "Kahn did not return calls from the Pioneer Press."

Studies in liberal governance: In Minnesota, a convicted sex offender who serves a short prison sentence and repeatedly violates the terms of his probation gets to take advantage of his freedom to ruin another woman's life (his first conviction was for criminal sexual conduct with a 14-year-old girl). The details in the Star Tribune story tell you just about everything you need to know about Minnesota's criminal justice system: "Fugitive charged with Eagan rape eludes capture."

Rick Kahn speaks: You know, the guy who made Norm Coleman our senator. Is delusion a river in Egypt? Does "eulogy" mean never having to say you're sorry? According to the Star Tribune story this morning, "Rick Kahn says his eulogy was from the heart." From my heart: Thanks, Rick.

Here is a report from National Review Online about the passage of the U.N. resolution on Iraq. The report predicts that Iraq will quickly frustrate inspectors so obviously that the U.S. and Britain will attack Iraq within a few months, after brief discussions with the Security Council. Things could certainly play out that way. However, it is also possible, as the report acknowledges, that Iraq will string the U.N. along for a while and that, once that charade is finished, the U.S. will become bogged down in more wrangling at the U.N. I continue to believe that it was a mistake for President Bush to have taken the U.N. this seriously and to have done so much dancing with France.

Professor Robert George of Princeton also believes that, for Senate Republicans, this is "no time for magnanimity," either when it comes to judicial nominees or to the legislative agenda that Republicans campaigned on this year. George argues persuasively that President Bush should revive the nomination of Judge Priscilla Owen whose nomination was killed by Democrats solely because she did not tow the liberal line on abortion. Not surprisingly, George offers far better counsel than the Washington Post (see below) when he concludes "there should be no compromising to appease left-wing Democrats. What we should do, rather, is learn from them. They are not timid about exercising political power when they come into possession of it. Nor should Republicans be."

The Washington Post urges President Bush to seek an accord with Senate Democrats regarding judicial nominations. Specifically, it urges Bush to (1) continue to push for procedural reforms that will speed up the process by which nominees receive consideration and (2) refrain from simply pushing as many conservatives as possible through the Senate. Bush should, indeed, enact procedural reforms. However, he should also make up for lost time and seek the confirmation of judges who share his conservative judicial philosophy. He should do this because it is his duty to nominate judges who share his view of the Constitution and because such judges are especially needed after nearly eight years of non-stop liberal appointments (the Republicans didn't start saying "no" until near the end of the Clinton presidency). The Post suggests that unless Bush reaches out to the Democrats now, they will thwart his nominees if they recapture the Senate two or four years from now. But it offers no reason to believe that the Democrats won't do this in any event. In fact, although the Post does not acknowledge it, Bush actually nominated some non-conservatives after he was elected in order to present a somewhat balanced slate of nominees to the Senate. The Democrats responded by confirming the moderates and mostly blocking the conservatives. The Post concludes by urging both sides to think about "what kind of nominees everyone could regard as above political dispute." As I have argued before, the answer among those who are sufficiently engaged to merit consideration for the bench is, essentially, the non-existent kind.

As a teen-ager, I studied political philosophy at the feet of Bob Dylan. You know, "Blowin' in the Wind," "Masters of War," "The Lonesome Death of Hattie Carroll"--the mock-Woody Guthrie stuff for which Dylan himself rapidly lost the taste. When he did so, he wrote a brilliant kissoff to the folk/protest movement called "Restless Farewell." It took me a little longer than Dylan to figure out how lame this stuff was, but by the time Dylan-clone Phil Ochs committed suicide in a funk over the Vietnam War, I think I was beginning to get on to it.

In any event, Daniel Henninger of the Wall Street Journal must have had a misspent youth a little like mine. In his weekly Journal column this morning he manages to cast his interpretation of Tuesday's electoral results into the lyrics of Dylan songs. Referring to the famous blue/red (Democrat/Republican) electoral map that depicted the 2000 election, Henninger all but sings: "It's all over now, baby blue."

When I saw the headline that Sara Olson/Kathy Soliah had pleaded guilty to murder in the Sacramento bank case, along with three of her fellow gang members, I was stunned. The fact that justice could be done so long after the fact, in the face of obvious obstacles and widespread indifference, is a tribute to dedicated, tenacious law enforcement. Now here is an almost equally surprising headline: the last remaining SLA member, James Kilgore, has been captured in a "luxury suburb" of Cape Town, South Africa, where he was teaching at a university under an alias. Once again, we take our hats off to the Los Angeles and Sacramento police departments and the FBI for refusing to forget the murders and other mayhem committed by this criminal gang.

Rocket Man has also hit it out of the park in his blog below. The party out of power always faces a tough decision about whether to present the voters with "an echo or a choice," as Barry Goldwater once put it. In terms of presidential politics, a centrist candidate may be more electable in theory. However, in practice presidential races are usually determined almost entirely by the popularity of the incumbent. Thus, if you are a liberal or a conservative, it probably makes sense to run a strong liberal or conservative against the incumbent or his would-be successor on the theory that if the president is unpopular you can elect the person you want and if the president is popular you can't elect anyone. In 1980, for example, the first George Bush might have run better against Carter than Reagan did, but Reagan was certainly electable, easily as it turned out. However, there are elections when the incumbent is "borderline popular." In that case, there is a risk associated with running a strong liberal or conservative. In 2000, anyone more conservative than Bush would probably have lost, and indeed Bush nearly lost, whereas the more liberal McCain might well have won fairly comfortably. When it comes to congressional races, going strong liberal or strong conservative on a national basis when the president is popular carries a huge risk. Losing the presidency is losing the presidency whether or not the election is close. But landslide losses in the presidential race usually have devastating implications for the make-up of Congress. Landslide victims of the past 40 years -- Mondale, McGovern, and Goldwater himself -- all provided a choice rather than an echo.

Victor Davis Hanson hits another one out of the park in this piece about "the bankruptcy of the anti-Americanists." Hanson shows how the stance of the dissident left in the present war with the Islamofascists has proven that the these folks were never opposed to fascism, much less in favor of democracy abroad, but instead are simply "deductive anti-Americanists" motivated only a "a strange desire to vent displeasure with our own culture." Hanson also believes that "the Democrats' failure to condemn loudly and publicly the ravings of the lunatic left" is part of the explanation for this week's election results.

The post mortems on the election are mostly in, and a clear majority of Democrats are attributing their losses to a failure to attack President Bush aggressively enough and to distinguish themselves sufficiently from the Republicans. With only a few exceptions, the mainstream press is reporting this assessment with approval. The conventional view was neatly summed up this morning in a cartoon in the Anchorage Daily News--unfortunately not available online--that depicted a saloon with noisily celebrating elephants; two dejected donkeys sit at a table drinking "GOP Lite" beer, and one of them says, "I think I'm ready for something stronger." Almost entirely absent from the "mainstream" commentary is any acknowledgement that most Americans like President Bush and his policies, and many were put off by the Democrats' attacks on him, or that many Americans were repelled by the obstructionist tactics of Daschle, Leahy et al. in the Senate. It is interesting that whenever Republicans lose, the diagnosis in the mainstream press is that they lost because they were too "extreme" and need to move toward the center, i.e., become more like Democrats. (Never mind that in the days when Republicans were nearly indistinguishable from Democrats, they appeared to be on the road to extinction.) I'm not sure I've ever seen a mainstream press account suggesting that Republicans lost because they didn't attack the Democrats hard enough or distinguish themselves sufficiently from Democratic policies. So: When Republicans lose, the moral is that they need to be more like Democrats; when Democrats lose, the moral is that they need to be less like Republicans.

Al-Qaeda comes to St. Paul: And thank God, the cable guy noticed. The Star Tribune has a terrific story in this morning's paper: "Drugs-for-missile suspect raised suspicions in St. Paul."

Charles Krauthammer's weekly column this morning expresses a devastating assessment of the Democratic Party based only partly on Tuesday's election results. According to Krauthammer, "The message of the 2002 election is that the Democrats remain brain-dead, and that ideas -- lack of ideas -- have consequences." His concluding observations pay tribute to President Bush, and suggest that the American people have taken his measure. The column is "The Uses of Political Courage."

I don't understand where on the political spectrum Michal Lind is nowadays, but he is a very smart guy, with a Deacon-like knowledge of American history. The Financial Times carries his evaluation of Tuesday's election results, and it is worth reading. With thanks to our friends at RealClearPolitics for bringing it to our attention, the column is "The Emerging Democratic Minority."

Here's a Washington Post story about Maryland's Lieutenant Governor-elect Michael Steele, my former law firm colleague and Maryland's first elected black state official. The article doesn't mention it, but Steele's sister, a medical doctor, happens to be the former wife of Iron Mike Tyson. The Post reports that the Ehrlich-Steele ticket got about 13 percent of the African-American vote. That's more than the pre-election polls showed, but only marginally better than the rate of black support for Republican gubernatorial candidates in the recent past. As I speculated a few days ago, however, Steele may have helped Ehrlich by making him appear moderate to white voters. Here, the Washington Post reports that Ehrlich received two-thirds of the votes cast by white "moderates," and that's what decided the election. Overall, the final vote was 51 percent for Ehrlich and 48 percent for Townsend.

Last night, I posted a piece by Sam Schulman on the Jewish vote that Mrs. Trunk was kind enough to call to our attention. I suggested that Jews should abandon the Democratic Party, rather than trying to influence it, because anti-Semitic elements in the Party would inevitably become too powerful to counteract. Perhaps the best evidence for my premise can be found in a piece I posted over the weekend by two leading Democratic Congressmen, Martin Frost (Jewish) and John Lewis (African-American). In that piece, Frost subscribed to view that Jews, in effect, would simply have to get used to African-Americans supporting the Palestinian cause. Since the Democratic Party needs the African-American vote more than it needs the Jewish vote, one can ultimately substitute the phrase "Democratic Party" for "African-Americans" in Frost's warning. Indeed, as Schulman points out, we got a glimpse of the future during the Clinton years, when successive Israeli governments were pressured by the U.S. to make concessions to the Palestinians even in the face of repeated PLO violations of the Oslo accords and escalating violence against Israel.

Of course, Jews are concerned about domestic issues too. But unless one is a socialist or a trial lawyer, the Democrats have little to offer Jews on the domestic front, other than higher taxes and affirmative action programs that discriminate against Jews (and other whites) on the basis of their skin color. This is not a Party with a soul worth fighting over.

The Star Tribune's account of Sara Jane Olson's plea deal has more details than the AP story and is also worth reading. The story is "Sara Jane Olson pleads guilty to murder." Here's the beauty part: "'I never entered that bank with the intent of harming anyone,' Olson testified during a hearing Thursday in Superior Court in Sacramento, Calif. 'I am truly sorry, and I will be sorry until the day I die.'"

See, she only meant to rob the bank. She only carried her own carbine for show. And her colleague wasn't supposed to fire the hair trigger shotgun that blew Mrs. Opsahl away. Olson's lawyer has nevertheless undoubtedly explained to her the difficulties presented by the felony murder doctrine. The former Emily Harris (now Emily Montague) was the person who pulled the trigger, and also, like Olson, expresses great remorse over the murder. On the day of the shooting, however, she advised Olson and her SLA colleagues that Mrs. Opsahl was a "bourgeois pig." (The plea agreement stipulates to every relevant fact described in Patricia Hearst's account of the robbery and murder.) By the way, the robbery in which Mrs. Opsahl was murdered netted $15,000.

The remorse expressed by the SLA crowd at the plea hearing will undoubtedly come as something of a surprise to the Opsahl family. They haven't heard from any of the SLA folks in the 25 years or so since Mrs. Opsahl was murdered. And one of this disgusting crew beat the rap when he was charged and tried a few years back, a time when their expressions of remorse might have actually meant something.

Trunk, your distinction between Luther's tactics and those of the Democrats and Republicans in 1884 is well taken. I think that the Republicans helped cobble together the Peoples' Party from the old Greenback Party and some labor elements, but it was a bona fide party and Butler was a legitimate, if highly eccentric, candidate. Meanwhile, Bob McCarthy, a reader who lives in Kline's district, suggests that half of the vote for Garst (the fake candidate) may have come from potential Luther voters. Mr. McCarthy has liberal friends who were outraged by Luther's actions but couldn't bring themselves to vote for Kline, "so they decided to vote for the very candidate Luther had created." I'm a stranger in these parts, so I can't comment on Mr. McCarthy's theory, but it seemed interesting enough to pass along.

The shocking headline on the AP wire story posted on the Pioneer Press Web site says it all: "Olson, 3 other ex-SLA members, to plead guilty to murder."

To expand on the headline a little, St. Paul's own terrorist--Sara Jane Olson, f/k/a Kathleen Soliah--has agreed to plead guilty to the murder of Myrna Opsahl in the course of the robbery of the Crocker National Bank in Sacramento in 1975, along with her three other Symbionese Liberation Army colleagues who are also in custody.

Rocket Man and I wrote about Olson's local supporters in the piece "Kathy's Clowns" that is linked over on the left under our publications. Rocket Man appeared on a local television public affairs show discussing her apprehension and participation in the various offenses that led to her apprehension.

Olson's incarceration for her plea on the original attempted bombing charge in Los Angeles and her pending plea on the murder charge in Sacramento bring a measure of justice to the family of Myrna Opsahl, a measure of justice that has been resisted vociferously by Olson's leftist friends and colleagues in the Twin Cities and elsewhere.

Her conviction in Los Angeles and her pending conviction in Sacramento are almost entirely attributable to the unbelievably dogged legal work of Los Angeles County Assistant District Attorney Michael Lattin. We have previously conveyed to him personally our sincere gratitude and admiration for his outstanding work; he played an invaluable role in bringing both of these difficult cases to a successful resolution.

Deacon's post below provides the kind of historical perspective that makes us proud. But the examples cited really only highlight the unique depths to which Bill Luther sank in his desperate efforts to hold onto his office. With Luther's connivance, Sam Garst filed as a candidate of a non-existent party: the "No New Taxes" party. And Garst himself was a Democratic activist in the tax-and-spend mold. Literally everything about his candidacy was fraudulent, simply intended to drain votes from John Kline under false pretenses.

The television advertisements that Luther ran the weekend before the election were designed to complement the fraudulent Garst candidacy by asserting that John Kline was in favor of a new tax, a national sales tax. Right through the final day of the campaign, Luther was trying to drain votes from Kline and drive them to the fraudulent Garst candidacy through the use of that advertisement.

By contrast, Benjamin Butler and John St. John were legitimate candidates and the Peoples' Party and the Prohibition Party were bona fide parties. Let's give Luther his due: his campaign hit a new kind of rock bottom in American politics.

More on the South Dakota Senate race from the Sioux Falls Argus Leader. Republican John Thune has said it is not likely that he will ask for a recount, but he is "not totally ruling out any option." Thune plans to "follow the process, check the math, and make sure all the t's are crossed and the i's are dotted, so that we're sure there were no irregularities." One irregularity that apparently will not be challenged is that some polling places in Todd and Mellette counties "mistakenly opened an hour early" and remained open until the usual 7 p.m. closing time, meaning that they were open one hour longer than the rest of the polls. According to the Argus Leader, Todd County "is the Rosebud Indian Reservation" and "is predominantly Democrat," while Mellette County is "split between Republicans and Democrats." Reader Cory Skluzak notes that Mellette County's is 52% Indian and also contains parts of the Rosebud Reservation.

Yesterday morning, I suggested that the Democrats would overreact to their electoral defeat and adopt a more explicitly leftist and virulently anti-Bush posture, probably to their detriment. National Review's Dinesh D'Souza offers some amusing suggestions for how the Democrats might accomplish this. Meanwhile, on the same National Review Online page, Rod Dreher reports that we may get an early glimpse of this strategy in Louisiana, of all places. According to Dreher, Mary Landrieu is planning to discard her Bush-friendly moderate persona in her run-off election. Supposedly, she is preparing to run as a "Bush-bashing old-style Democrat" in order to energize her black supporters. I'm certainly not qualified to second-guess Mary Landrieu and her family when it comes to Louisiana politics, but Presdent Bush is quite popular in Louisiana. I tend to agree with Dreher that Landrieu's proposed strategy sounds like a political "Hail Mary."

You know, Trunk, Luther's trick was used in 19th century presidential elections. In the election of 1884 between Grover Cleveland and James Blaine, the Republicans (it was widely believed) subsidized the thrid-party campaign of Peoples' Party candidate Benjamin Butler, in order to take the populist vote away from the more conservative Cleveland. And the Democrats are believed to have subsidized fourth party candidate John St. John, the Prohibition Party candidate, so that Cleveland would suffer less from the anti "rum" vote. This tactic was considered dirty even in the rough-and-tumble politics of that era.

And finally, I want to note that despite John Kline's victory on Tuesday, Bill Luther's dirty trick worked--sort of. Luther's campaign coordinated with a Democratic activist named Sam Garth, who filed in Luther's district under the banner of the fictitious "No New Taxes" party. The obvious intent was to drain conservative support away from Kline's campaign. The tactic was denounced by every newspaper in the Twin Cities and in Luther's district, and the issue kept Luther on the defensive throughout the campaign. Nevertheless, for three or four days prior to the election, Luther blanketed the airways with a television ad that began, "Are you ready for a new tax?" It went on to quote Kline commenting favorably on the concept of a national sales tax--but without noting that the national sales tax (which is not part of Kline's platform in any case) is envisioned as a substitute for the income tax. On Tuesday, Sam Garst and the No New Taxes party drew the votes of a clueless 4.3% of the voters who had somehow missed the entire controversy, but were likely influenced by Luther's ad. If the race had been as close as Luther and Kline's two prior races, that 4.3% would have swung the election to Luther. Thus, Luther's dirty trick worked, in a sense; of course, the controversy cost him many votes and probably accounts for a good part of Kline's margin.

I have long had high regard for Tim Pawlenty, the governor-elect of Minnesota. This campaign, however, gave him a broader stage and the opportunity to fully display his political talents. He performed brilliantly. Pawlenty is an extremely able lawyer, legislator and administrator. We now see that in addition, he is a politician of tremendous talent. His victory speech Tuesday night and press conference Wednesday morning were broadcast nationally; both performances were superb. At only 41 years old, I think the sky is the limit for Pawlenty. We might even see him, some day, on a national ticket.