Typically cautious Larry Sabato, head of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics, is rocking the political world with a new "Crystal Ball" prediction: The GOP will win the House, making Ohio's John Boehner speaker, might get a 50-50 split in the Senate, and will pick up some eight new governors.

"2010 was always going to be a Republican year, in the midterm tradition," Sabato said in his latest prediction, issued Thursday. "But conditions have deteriorated badly for Democrats over the summer. The economy appears rotten, with little chance of a substantial comeback by November 2nd. Unemployment is very high, income growth sluggish, and public confidence quite low. The Democrats' self-proclaimed 'Recovery Summer' has become a term of derision, and to most voters--fair or not--it seems that President Obama has over-promised and under-delivered."

Sabato on House elections: "Given what we can see at this moment, Republicans have a good chance to win the House by picking up as many as 47 seats, net. ... If anything, we have been conservative in estimating the probable GOP House gains, if the election were being held today."

Sabato on the Senate: "In the Senate, we now believe the GOP will do a bit better than our long-time prediction of +7 seats. Republicans have an outside shot at winning full control (+10), but are more likely to end up with +8 (or maybe +9, at which point it will be interesting to see how senators such as Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut, Ben Nelson of Nebraska, and others react).

This, too, is an interesting point that I had forgotten: the House has changed hands six times since World War II, and every time the Senate has switched, too, whether that result was expected or not. That's hardly a rule of nature, but it is an interesting precedent as we look forward to November 2.

1. Rosy Economic Projections — By: Veronique de Rugy
2. Re: Rosy Economic Projections — By: Veronique de Rugy
3. CBO Ups The Cost Projections Of Obamacare

In her story for Saturday’s CBS Evening News, Cordes had a very specific attendee number: “According to a tally commissioned by CBS News, roughly 87,000 people gathered here at this event today, thronging both sides of the reflecting pool, stretching all the way to the World War II memorial. That's the largest gathering here on the mall since President Obama was inaugurated.”

NBC anchor Lester Holt was more generous with his crowd guesstimate (“tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands”) before he described the Beck rally as “steeped in patriotism, rooted in the nation's cultural divide and greeted by suspicion.”

Holt opened the August 28 NBC Nightly News:

Good evening. Tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of people from all over the country gathered at the foot of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington today for a rally steeped in patriotism, rooted in the nation's cultural divide and greeted by suspicion. It was organized by provocative conservative talk show host Glenn Beck who was joined on stage by Sarah Palin. And if that wasn't enough to trigger reaction from activists on the left, the timing and place of the rally certainly was – the anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr's “I Have a Dream” speech delivered from those same steps 47 years ago today.

Flashback to April: “White NBC Reporter Confronts Black Man at Tea Party Rally: 'Have You Ever Felt Uncomfortable?'”

Back to the CBS Evening News and Cordes, a little of what led into the exchange quoted above:

NANCY CORDES: Beck, who is a converted Mormon, likes to call himself a clown, but today he played the role of ring-master, preaching racial tolerance to the nearly all-white crowd. A change in tone from the Fox News host who notoriously called President Obama [Beck: “a racist.”]

CORDES (or at least a female voice) TO TWO BLACK WOMEN: I'm noticing that there aren't a lot of minorities here today. Why do you think that is?

WOMAN: They're probably over there with Al Sharpton.

(There was no World News on ABC on Saturday night, at least in the EDT and CDT zones, because of the Little League World Series Texas v Hawaii playoff game. Hawaii won.)

1. Bill Press: Glenn Beck Rally at Lincoln Memorial ‘Like Granting Al Qaeda Permission to Hold a Rally on Sept. 11 at Ground Zero’
2. Black Leaders Press Obama to Help Minorities
3. Beck: Maybe both parties aren’t the same

The Harptones came together in 1953 and promptly engineered an appearance at the Apollo Theater's famous amateur night show. They sang their inventive rendition of the 1947 Jo Stafford hit "Sunday Kind of Love" to great effect. Their recording of the song came out that December; you can hear it on the Harptones site and pick up the group's full history on the Vocal Group Hall of Fame page devoted to them.

1. Muslim soldier Nidal Hasan to fellow military doctors: “We love death more then (sic) you love life!” Updated
2. Sunday Open Thread: Palestine Edition
3. CBS and NBC Skip Hasan’s Ominous ‘We Love Death More Than You Love Life’

I watched just about every major political talk show on television this weekend, and the funniest thing I heard was a comment by David Boaz of the libertarian think tank the Cato Institute.

In the predictions segment of "The McLaughlin Group," the Kentucky native spoke of the hotly contested race for Senate in that state between Tea Party candidate Rand Paul and Democrat Jack Conway.

What ensued left the entire panel laughing - except, of course, Newsweek's Eleanor Clift (video follows with transcript and commentary):

DAVID BOAZ, CATO INSTITUTE: In Kentucky, the Democrats are calling Rand Paul an extremist. Rand Paul is responding by calling his opponent a Democrat. In the end, the voters will be more scared of a Democrat.  

1. Sunday Funnies: Obama Lectures G20 About Debt Reduction
2. Sunday Funnies: Stephen Colbert Moderates Global Warming Debate
3. The Democrats in 2010 — “ideologically diverse” or running scared?

When the First Family vacationed there last year, Obama-themed trinkets were flying off the shelves. Now, the owner of a store called the Locker Room says this summer's best-selling shirt features Mr. Bush. And even Democrats are buying it. It reads: “Miss Me Yet? How's that Hopey-Changey Thing Working Out for Ya?”

In an August 18 Globe story, “Vineyard buzzes less for Obamas’ second visit,” Milton J. Valencia reported on the Oak Bluffs store:

...One barometer of the plunge in excitement has been the sale of Obama-themed T-shirts, which designers had been banking on after the craze of last year. Clothing labeled with the president’s name sold by the thousands, helping to salvage a tough economic year for the island.

But this year’s T-shirt sales are much less brisk, merchants say.

“Last year, Obama gave you goose bumps, but I don’t think you’re going to see that this year,’’ said Alex McCluskey, co-owner of the Locker Room, who sold more than 4,000 “I vacationed with Obama’’ T-shirts last year. But so far this year, he said, his hot item is T-shirts of former President Bush asking, “Miss me yet?’’...

1. China Bans Oba-Mao T-Shirts Before Obama Visit
2. Bush “Miss Me Yet?” Merchandise Selling Like Hotcakes
3. Bush “Miss Me Yet?” Merchandise Selling Like Hotcakes

Now we applaud Miss USA, Rima Fakih, who says that developers should keep their proposed mosque away from Ground Zero:

The reigning Miss USA has come out against the Ground Zero mosque, saying "it shouldn't be so close" to Ground Zero.

The 24-year-old Rima Fakih, is the first Muslim winner of the Miss USA contest and is preparing for the Miss Universe Pageant, scheduled for Monday in Las Vegas.

"I totally agree with President Obama with the statement on Constitutional rights of freedom of religion," Fakih told "Inside Edition" in an interview that will air tonight. "I also agree that it shouldn't be so close to the World Trade Center. We should be more concerned with the tragedy than religion."

Hers is one of the cooler heads that may, perhaps, prevail. And one of the more beautiful, too:

The Miss Universe pageant is at Mandalay Bay in Las Vegas this year; it will be broadcast Monday night. My day job has been pretty much all-consuming lately, and I've been remiss in previewing the competition, except for this post. The pageant's official site is good. Among other things, it has more videos than I've been able to keep up with. Tonight I reviewed the titles of some of the recent videos, including "Swimsuits For Freedom." Yeah, right, I thought. But it turns out that the video ties in directly with the subject of this post. Check it out:

I'll have more to say about the pageant over the weekend.

1. Miss Michigan Wins Miss USA Pageant, Arab Americans Excited
2. Leftist Hollywood Injects Divisive Politics Into Miss USA Pageant… Again
3. The obligatory “Muslim woman wins Miss USA pageant” post

One thing we can't afford to do though is privatize Social Security - an ill-conceived idea that would add trillions of dollars to our budget deficit while tying your benefits to the whims of Wall Street traders and the ups and downs of the stock market.

A few years ago, we had a debate about privatizing Social Security. And I'd have thought that debate would've been put to rest once and for all by the financial crisis we've just experienced. I'd have thought, after being reminded how quickly the stock market can tumble, after seeing the wealth people worked a lifetime to earn wiped out in a matter of days, that no one would want to place bets with Social Security on Wall Street; that everyone would understand why we need to be prudent about investing the retirement money of tens of millions of Americans.

How dumb does he think we are? I assume all but the dimmest Americans understand that the government doesn't "invest [their] retirement money." If a businessman lied through his teeth like that, he would be guilty of fraud.

But some Republican leaders in Congress don't seem to have learned any lessons from the past few years. They're pushing to make privatizing Social Security a key part of their legislative agenda if they win a majority in Congress this fall. It's right up there on their to-do list with repealing some of the Medicare benefits and reforms that are adding at least a dozen years to the fiscal health of Medicare - the single longest extension in history.

That agenda is wrong for seniors, it's wrong for America, and I won't let it happen. Not while I'm President. I'll fight with everything I've got to stop those who would gamble your Social Security on Wall Street. Because you shouldn't be worried that a sudden downturn in the stock market will put all you've worked so hard for - all you've earned - at risk.

Have you ever seen a plan for privatizing Social Security that would require anyone to "gamble his Social Security on Wall Street"? I haven't.

But what's interesting to me is not that demagoguing Social Security is fraudulent, but rather that it may no longer be effective. This CNN Opinion Research poll finds that, among respondents who are not yet retired, only 39 percent believe that "the Social Security system will be able to pay you a benefit when you retire." An astonishing 60 percent do not believe that the system will be able to pay them a benefit--which I guess means any benefit.

Those results include respondents all the way up to retirement age. Among those aged 35-49, a whopping 68 percent don't expect Social Security to pay them a benefit when they retire.

Given those findings, it seems unlikely that the Democrats can make much headway by accusing Republicans of wanting to "gamble" voters' Social Security taxes.

1. Meredith Jessup: Next Bailout: Social Security
2. Social Security to Start Cashing Uncle Sam’s IOUs
3. AP Formally Notes Arrival of a Social Security Tipping Point — On Selection Sunday

That's despicable, of course. But how different is it from Harvard Law School dean Martha Minow accusing Senate Republicans of racism in an op-ed in the Boston Globe? Minow noted that some Republican Senators questioned Elena Kagan's adherence to the judicial philosophy of Thurgood Marshall, which Minow thinks is out of bounds and can only indicate racial animus, since Marshall was a "saint."

Many members of the Judiciary Committee criticized Kagan for her admiration of Justice Thurgood Marshall, for whom she clerked.

Let's pause there. It is common for law clerks to admire the judges for whom they work; no one questioned whether Kagan should admire Marshall. Some Senate Republicans did ask, however, whether she agreed with his expansive view of federal powers and his flexible--to put it kindly--view of the Constitution. Minow continues:

Invoking Justice Marshall now, some want to appeal to and perhaps feed anxieties of some whites about desegregation -- and about black men in power.

Really, isn't Minow even more contemptible than the goofball who tried to infiltrate the Rand Paul rally? She is well aware that Senate Republicans who asked Kagan about Marshall's judicial philosophy never mentioned, and had no interest in, his race. The argument here is about fidelity to the Constitution, an argument in which Minow has no intention of engaging. She is just another drive-by Democratic Party dirty trickster, but a better-paid one than the Rand Paul infiltrator.

1. Harry Reid Wants to Vote on a Phantom Bill (Dem Dirty Tricks Edition)
2. Still time for a few dirty tricks in MA
3. Harry Reid Wants to Vote on a Phantom Bill (Dem Dirty Tricks Edition)

Ryan responded first in an op-ed in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

Despite watching European welfare states collapse under the weight of their own debt, those running Washington are leading us down precisely the same path. With the debt surpassing $13 trillion, we can no longer avoid having a serious discussion about how to address the unsustainable growth of government.

Unfortunately, rather than make meaningful contributions to this conversation and bring solutions to the table, Democrats have attempted to win this debate by default. Relying on demagoguery and distortion, the left would prefer that entitlements - often labeled the "third rail" of American politics - remain untouchable, and the column by Paul Krugman of The New York Times is indicative of the partisan attacks leveled against the plan I've offered, a "Roadmap for America's Future."

When I introduced the "Roadmap," my hope was that it would spur an open and honest discussion about how our nation can address its fiscal challenges. If we are truly committed to developing real solutions, this discussion must be free of the inflammatory rhetoric that has derailed past reform efforts. In keeping with this spirit, it is necessary to clarify some of the inaccurate claims and distortions made recently regarding the "Roadmap."

The assertion by Krugman and others that the revenue assumptions in the "Roadmap" are overly optimistic and that my staff directed the Congressional Budget Office not to analyze the tax elements of the "Roadmap" is a deliberate attempt to misinform and mislead.

I asked the CBO to analyze the long-term revenue impact of the "Roadmap," but officials declined to do so because revenue estimates are the jurisdiction of the Joint Tax Committee. The Joint Tax Committee does not produce revenue estimates beyond the 10-year window, and so I worked with Treasury Department tax officials in setting the tax reform rates to keep revenues consistent with their historical average.

What critics such as Krugman fail to understand is that our looming debt crisis is driven by the explosive growth of government spending - not from a lack of tax revenue.

That was a remarkably polite refutation of Krugman's impenetrable ignorance. Today, in an interview with the Weekly Standard, Ryan expressed himself a little more freely:

"I realize he's a columnist and not a journalist, yet he could have easily tried to have verified his claims with a phone call or an email," Ryan said of Krugman. "Instead he went with his confusion and chose to impugn motives," said Ryan, "which strikes me as a very intellectually lazy exercise or style." ...

While Ryan focused on the nitty-gritty policy aspects of his Roadmap this afternoon, he suggested that the underlying argument is about principles, not facts. "At the core of this is a big ideological fight between those who believe in the Founding principles and the sense of limited government--the American idea--and those who believe in the progressivist welfare state," Ryan said.

"The Roadmap is designed to maintain a limited government in the 21st century, and it is the antithesis of the progressivist vision which [Krugman] subscribes to. That's fine. I understand it violates his vision for a progressivist society," Ryan continued. "What I think is rather bizarre is his strange personal attack and ad hominem attacks based upon his confusion surrounding the scoring process, which could have been easily clarified with a simple phone call or email."

"I'm not going to descend into the mudpit with Krugman on this stuff," Ryan said. "I want to stay on policy and ideas."

Arguing with Krugman calls to mind the old adage about mud-wrestling with a pig: not only do you wind up muddy, but the pig actually likes it. The Roadmap deserves to be debated, but don't expect any liberals to join the debate in good faith.

1. Smart Grid, Dumb Idea — By: Iain Murray
2. Here Come the Suns Dumb Dumb Da Dumb
3. Raising Tobacco Taxes is Dumb

Hat tip: Kyle Smith.

1. What If There Were Free Elections in Iran? — By: NRO Staff
2. What If There Were Free Elections in Iran? — By: NRO Staff
3. Iran 1979 vs. Iran Today — By: Michael Rubin

Which brings us to this Rasmussen survey on John Edwards' standing with North Carolina voters. The numbers are certainly bad: 11% view Edwards favorably, while 84% have an unfavorable opinion. That is, by any standard, a stunning fall from grace. Just ten years ago, Edwards was his party's Vice Presidential candidate, and a mere two and a half years ago he was a credible candidate for the Presidency. So 84% unfavorability in his home state is appalling, but not surprising, given what we now know about Edwards.

What intrigues me is the 11% who still think highly of him. Whatever possesses them? I suspect that, jokesters aside, they represent the hard core of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party in North Carolina--that is, those who would be willing to put aside all else to get some of that cold, hard cash that Edwards' redistributionist policies promised them. There really are two Americas, and if you're in the one where politics is a meal ticket, ethical issues are likely to be secondary at best.

1. Bozell Column: So Much for ‘Core Conservative Values’
2. Obama Says Tea Party Is Built Around Core Group of Birthers (Video)
3. Is That an Ice Core in Your Pocket? — By: Mark Steyn

In the most significant changes to Britain's defences since the post-Suez review of 1957, ministers and officials plan to scrap large parts of the Armed Forces.

The Services will lose up to 16,000 personnel, hundreds of tanks, scores of fighter jets and half a dozen ships, under detailed proposals passed to The Daily Telegraph.

But the RAF will bear the brunt of the planned cuts. The Air Force will lose 7,000 airmen - almost one sixth of its total staff - and 295 aircraft. The cuts will leave the Force with fewer than 200 fighter planes for the first time since 1914. In addition, the Navy will lose two submarines, three amphibious ships and more than 100 senior officers, along with 2,000 sailors and marines.

It sounds as though the overall spending cuts may be a done deal, but specific implementation by the services is not. Still, the big picture appears pretty grim:

If implemented, the cuts will mean that Britain will almost certainly depart the world stage as a major military power and become what military chiefs call a "medium-scale player".

A Ministry of Defence spokesman comments:

The Defence Secretary has made clear that tough decisions will need to be made but the complex process of a Strategic Defence and Security Review will be concluded in the autumn and speculation at this stage about its outcome is entirely unfounded.

1. Obama to Britain: Drop Dead — By: Andrew Stuttaford
2. Britain R.I.P. — By: Iain Murray
3. Britain’s Liberal Democrats: Not Adding Up? — By: Andrew Stuttaford

Gallup points out in its analysis that the five-point edge is “not statistically significant,” but it does represent a “return to the prevailing 2010 pattern, seen since mid-March, whereby Republicans were tied or held a slight advantage over Democrats in most Gallup Daily tracking weekly averages.”

Republicans' resurgence this past week could simply represent a return to the prior norm, but may also have been spurred by the Afghanistan war documents leak, the federal judge's ruling that blocked the implementation of certain aspects of the Arizona immigration law, and perhaps ethics investigations into two powerful senior Democratic members of the House, Charlie Rangel and Maxine Waters.

If Republicans can keep up these numbers among registered voters, Gallup predicts that there could be “major seat gains” for the party in November. President Obama’s approval rating, it adds, remains flat at 45 percent.

1. GOP Now Leads Dems In Gallup’s Generic Congressional Ballot
2. Gallup: Democratic Edge on Generic Ballot at Perilous 2%
3. Gallup: Republicans edge Democrats on generic Congressional ballot

It didn't take long to find Manning's long-lost twin. OK, I admit the ears are different, but still:

We report, you decide!

1. Birth Tourism — By: Mark Krikorian
2. Birth Tourism — By: Mark Krikorian
3. Remembering Lincoln: What is ‘The New Birth of Freedom’?

It isn't clear what Ms. Sherrod intends to sue Breitbart for; some variety of defamation, presumably. It seems inconceivable that she could survive summary judgment under the actual malice standard that would apply. Offhand, I would think that she would be better served to sue Tom Vilsack.

1. Video: NAACP posts full Sherrod video
2. New meme: Fox News got Sherrod fired because its website published a story about her
3. Inhofe Ranked Most Conservative Senator, Sherrod Brown Most Liberal

Sarah Palin commented, with considerable restraint, on her Facebook page, in a post titled Journey Into the Media's Heart of Darkness:

How ironic that on a day when we celebrate the 20th anniversary of the enactment of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, The Daily Caller released 15 pages of JournoListers' email exchanges about a dark and demented conspiracy regarding my son, Trig.

It's tough to fittingly describe these numerous members of the mainstream media who actively engaged in the debate about this conspiracy back when I was first introduced as John McCain's running mate, and it's impossible to legitimize any "prominent" media publication that continues to traffic in this bizarre narrative today. It wasn't just a few fringe characters in that JournoList discussion. It included writers for major newspapers, magazines, and online news publications. Those participating in this immature exchange in attempts to plant seeds of doubt and falsely accuse even included a famous historian.

This JournoList exchange exposes the warped nature of today's media, thus explaining why many of us are forced, in fairness to the public, to utilize other mediums to communicate until the mainstream media wakes up and begins respecting the public's intelligence and desire for truth in reporting. There is a sickness and darkness in today's liberal media. With revelations like the JournoList exchanges, may the light keep shining to expose the problem.

She's right. If you read the liberal journalists' comments on Palin's disabled son, "sickness" and "darkness" are the words that come to mind.

One last observation: this contribution by one Lindsay Beyerstein
 is laugh-out-loud funny. She warns that the theory that Trig was Bristol's baby may be a Republican dirty trick!

Lindsay Beyerstein
Aug 30, 2008, 11:20am

In the post-Rathergate era, journalists should be on their guard for Republican dirty tricks.

If this story gains traction, regardless of its truth or falsity, the Republicans will take steps to neutralize the meme.

It wouldn't surprise me if the McCain campaign were to leak doctored evidence for the sole purpose of discrediting it and destroying the journalist who published it. That's probably what the Killian memos were.

We should also be on guard for "evidence" falling into the lap of an unknown and easily discredited figure. That's probably what Rove did to neutralize the allegations of cocaine use by George W. Bush, lo these many years ago.

That line belongs in the Hall of Fame of Self-Delusion: "In the post-Rathergate era, journalists should be on their guard for Republican dirty tricks." These people are nuts.

1. Oh, Dear: Ezra Klein Now Shutting Down JournoList
2. Reward: $100,000 for Full ‘JournoList’ Archive; Source Fully Protected
3. David Weigel Explains Away ‘JournoList’ E-mails by Claiming to be a Jerk

It's funny how the political class is always wringing its hands about the potential for violence at Tea Party rallies, while 100% of the actual violence and intimidation that take place at political events is committed by union goons.

1. Union Goons Go After Aspiring Eagle Scout
2. Far Left’s ANSWER goons attack foes of illegal immigration
3. Far Left’s ANSWER goons attack foes of illegal immigration

How can this be, given our seemingly free and vibrant democracy? I think there are two main reasons, one specific to our present political environment and one more general.

The immediate cause is the fact that the Obama administration and its Congressional allies have embarked on an ambitious, left-wing program that seeks to transform America into a country quite different from what most Americans want. Elections have consequences, as the Democrats never tire of telling us. The problem is that the Democrats, most notably Barack Obama, did not run on the divisive, far-left program they are now trying to implement. Obama postured himself as a rather centrist, post-racial figure. His style as President has been the opposite.

So it is no wonder that most Americans believe they have gotten a government that they didn't vote for.

I think the more significant cause, however, is the general one--a growing conviction that America is governed by a political class that has its own agenda, involving its own enrichment as well as the endless expansion of its own power, and that this political class is contemptuous of the opinions of ordinary Americans and is determined to impose its will regardless of how Americans vote. I think this perception is in fact true.

The strongest evidence is the history of federal spending in the modern era, which began in the 1960s. Here it is, in constant dollars; click to enlarge:

There have been several occasions when the American people have voted for smaller government; most notably in 1972, 1980 and 1994. But it really doesn't matter. You can vote for limited government, but you can't get it; the political class won't let you. This is not to assert the silly proposition that there is no major difference between Democrats and Republicans. The fiscal disaster that we have witnessed since the Democrats took control of Congress in 2007 proves the contrary. But still: experience shows that voting for Republicans hasn't been enough to offset the power of the political class.

The main currents of our contemporary politics involve ordinary citizens rebelling against their masters in the political class. While by no means the only manifestation of this rebellion, the Tea Party movement is the most notable. What has happened to the Tea Party is instructive. It was first ignored, then ridiculed. Agents of the status quo like news services, newspapers, network news operations and the NAACP have been enlisted to lodge absurd charges of "racism" against Americans who protest out-of-control government spending. The Empire is striking back.

It remains to be seen whether the American people can finally break the grip of a political class that remains determined to run their lives and misappropriate trillions of dollars of their wealth. It will be, I think, a close-run thing. In the meantime, there is no mystery as to why most Americans do not regard the federal government as legitimate in Jeffersonian terms.

1. Dangerous Third-Party Talk — By: Kathryn Jean Lopez
2. Iraq’s Most Dangerous Profession? — By: Michael Rubin
3. Obama organizing group: Palin book tour “dangerous”

In a year in which we are constantly hearing about anti-incumbent fervor, the idea that a challenger "may be within striking distance" doesn't sound like a news flash. And, in fact, what the poll shows is that Bachmann enjoys a nine-point lead over her well-funded Democratic opponent. There are a lot of Democratic incumbents (think Barbara Boxer and Harry Reid) who would be delighted to enjoy a nine-point margin.

The real story of the race in Minnesota's Sixth District is Bachmann's fundraising prowess. Her opponent, Tarryl Clark, raised a remarkable $900,000 in the second quarter, pulling in contributions from fat cats around the country who would love to defeat Bachmann. But Michele raised a phenomenal $1.7 million, an unprecedented amount here in Minnesota, from over 28,000 contributors, and is said to have $4 million on hand. This is one race where, for a change, the Democrat won't enjoy a money edge, and Bachmann should win easily.

1. Wishful Thinking
2. NYT’s Charles Blow’s Wishful Thinking on GOP: ‘Turning Further Right Only Hastens Its Demise’
3. Government by Wishful Thinking

The Obama administration would quickly send home six Algerians held at the military detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, but for one problem: The men don't want to go. Given the choice between repatriation and incarceration, the men choose Gitmo, according to their lawyers.

The detainees fear that they might be tortured or killed if they return to Algeria. Which is to say, actually tortured, something that has never happened at Gitmo, notwithstanding the global hyperventilation of the last seven or eight years.

Administration officials point out that despite this history, the United States, under the Bush and Obama administrations, has already sent 10 Algerian detainees home from Guantanamo Bay, and that none has been persecuted.

But that isn't enough to persuade these detainees to leave Cuba:

The administration has been preparing to repatriate one of the six Algerians. But lawyers for Aziz Abdul Naji, 35, who has been held at Guantanamo for more than eight years, said he is "adamantly opposed to going back."

"It would be outrageous and inhumane to take him against his will," said Doris Tennant, one of his lawyers.

As people used to say in a very different context: only in America.

1. Gitmo To Chicago
2. “Gitmo’s Indefensible Lawyers” — By: Andy McCarthy
3. Former Gitmo Detainee Leads Insurgency in Southern Afghanistan

Pawlenty is often described as likable, and it's true. That comes through in this video of his visit to the Stafford County (Dover) New Hampshire Republican Picnic, which took place this weekend. Tim is one of the best story-tellers in modern politics, a formidable talent, I think. You also see his wife Mary, without doubt his closest adviser and confidante. Mary Pawlenty is a former judge who is regarded by everyone, as far as I can tell, as a thoroughly delightful, and thoroughly conservative, woman. Check out this video; I think you will get a sense of what an appealing candidate Pawlenty can be:

1. Meredith Jessup: Pawlenty in 2012?
2. How’s Pawlenty Doing? — By: Ramesh Ponnuru
3. Pawlenty in New Hampshire

BILL RICHARDSON: My view is that he is in a tough re-election, in a primary against J.D. Hayworth, and this is such a hot issue in Arizona. My hope Ed is after he gets re-elected that he will come back to his old position, which was as you said the Kennedy-McCain bill which has increased border enforcement but also has a path to legalization, a guest-worker program, cracking down on illegal hires, but most importantly a path to legalization.

RICHARDSON: If you're going to get into immigration reform, you got to have some Republicans, and right now it doesn't seem we have any.  Maybe Lindsey Graham. Maybe John McCain after he gets re-elected.

1. Did McCain Flip on Immigration, or Did Immigration Flip on McCain? — By: Daniel Foster
2. Graham Sees ‘Uphill Battle’ for Immigration Law — By: Daniel Foster
3. Arizona’s Largest Newspaper Says McCain, Other Politicians Failed on Immigration

Is this incestuous, or what? Kagan, as one of President Clinton's political operatives, co-wrote a report which was falsely presented to the American public and the federal courts as a pristine, purely scientific document, uncontaminated by any political influence. When the Supreme Court nevertheless refused to find a constitutional right to partial-birth abortion, Barack Obama attacked the Court's majority for failing to heed the wisdom of "science." Now he has appointed the very operative who subverted the scientific process to the Supreme Court, where she will no longer have to work behind the scenes. Nice.

1. Obama’s Radical Court Pick Elena Kagan Defended Stabbing Babies in the Back of the Skull
2. Kagan Helped Craft Clinton Strategy for Blocking Partial-Birth Abortion Ban
3. Kagan Says Bork Hearings Were Best Thing That Happened to Constitutional Democracy… Bork Says He Will Oppose Kagan

1. The Annals of Evil, Cont. — By: Jay Nordlinger
2. American Enterprise: An Intrinsic Quality of Greatness
3. Book Review: Mitt Romney’s No Apology: The Case for American Greatness

All those who believe Gaza is in need of more international aid should be aware of what has now happened twice to summer camps for children in Gaza that are run by the UN. Foreign Policy magazine reports:

Last night, 25 armed, masked men set fire to a U.N. summer camp at a beach in Nuseirat, Gaza, destroying inflatable pools and tents and roughing up a group of guards protecting the facility. It was the second attack on a U.N. recreation facility in just over a month. On May 23, a group of 30 masked, armed men set fire to another U.N. summer camp facility under construction in Gaza City. They also threatened to kill the U.N.'s top relief official in Gaza.

U.N. officials told Turtle Bay they don't know who attacked the recreation facilities but they suspect the vandals are Islamic extremists who object to programs that allow boys and girls to jointly swim, play volleyball, and learn about the arts, theater and other cultural activities.

This is yet another example of what I wrote about in the Daily Mail the other week - that the principle behind international aid programmes, that humanitarian assistance must be delivered regardless of the political situation because human need transcends politics or war, is totally flawed. All too often that aid is hijacked, trashed or used to prolong and deepen war or repression. In respect of Gaza, Barry Rubin makes a further related and salutary observation:

Prior to turning over the Gaza Strip to rule by the Palestinian Authority in 1994, Israel at times tried to resettle the refugees in new housing. This step was not only opposed by the PLO--which wanted to keep the refugees in temporary housing until their triumphant return to a Palestine built on the smoldering remains of a destroyed Israel--but by a UN resolution. And so Israel abandoned the effort.

The Palestinian Authority (PA) ruled the Gaza Strip for more than a dozen years and received lavish aid funding, some of it specifically earmarked for new housing. But it was PA policy never to move refugees into new housing, for the same reason as before. Their suffering was good propaganda abroad and also was intended to keep the refugees in a dissatisfied state of mind so they would support continuing the battle until total victory and be willing to sacrifice their lives for the cause.

When will they ever learn? In the case of the Obama administration, no time soon, apparently. Credible reports indicate that the administration is rewarding Hamas's terrorist intransigence by making it a key player in talks now going on over the fate of the region.

1. Rival Hamas, UN Summer Camps Compete over Children
2. Subsidizing Hamas — By: Michael Rubin
3. Hamas Reaps the Harvest

1. What price Christie? cont’d
2. What Price Christie? Part 4
3. What Price Christie? Part 2

MSNBC
News Live
6/29/10

10:54 a.m.

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Let's bring in our panel right now on the Supreme Court confirmation hearing. NBC News Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent Andrea Mitchell, Susan Page, USA Today Washington Bureau Chief, David Corn, Washington Bureau Chief of Mother Jones, he's also a blogger on PoliticsDaily.com, and Sherrilyn Ifill, who's a professor of law at the University of Maryland Law School. Let's go around the panel in that order, your thoughts about this whole topic here is so hot in terms of partisan politics. Traditionally the Republican Party does not like any restraint on spending, the Democrats like to see restraints because they've always believed that, somehow, the other party has an advantage in money. Andrea?

ANDREA MITCHELL, NBC News chief foreign affairs correspondent: This was the case that she lost before the Supreme Court, and so this is positioning by both sides. She clearly has a very good handle on the details of this case, but she was on the losing end of this argument and there's no way that Orrin Hatch and other would ever agree.

MATTHEWS: The "Hillary" movie was a very tough partisan movie put out for general commercial distribution and it was perceived to be a political document by the Democrats.

MITCHELL: It was perceived to be a political document and that was the argument, that it should not be permitted.

MATTHEWS: That it could not be financed by corporate purposes.

MITCHELL: By corporate purposes.

MATTHEWS: Right, David?

DAVID CORN, Mother Jones Washington Bureau Chief: But as we know, the 5-6 justices on the Supreme Court took this case and they expanded it even more so which is what got President Obama and other people riled up and they took a bigger swing at the McCain-Feingold bill, which had been passed by the Senate, which now Solicitor General Kagan is appearing before. And it was decried as judicial activism by people on the left and liberals and The New York Times. So I think Hatch's main political point here is to try and stop that narrative because I think it's really been absorbed that Citizens United went too far as a court decision.

MATTHEWS: And this came out in the president's State of the Union where he took a swipe at the Supreme Court with Samuel Alito and other justices there and they didn't like it.

SUSAN PAGE, USA Today Washington bureau chief: They didn't. You know, it's interesting since Kagan argued this case she feels pretty comfortable with it and you see, I think, a more free-flowing exchange between the Senator and the nominee there then we've seen on some others. Kagan famously called these hearings "vapid and hollow" in the past but we've seen some flashes of humor here this morning. And interestingly, Kagan said that she thought it would be a terrific idea to have TV cameras in the Supreme Court. If she gets confirmed that's an issue where she'll have some real issues with her colleagues.

MATTHEWS: Am I wrong in hearing flashes here of the Anita Hill testimony way back when in the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings? Orrin Hatch has to be very careful. Most voters are female. This is a female nominee, right? They must have that memory. That political memory and almost their intellectual muscle.

MITCHELL: They have learned the lesson. The Senate Judiciary Committee is being very careful, with the exception perhaps of Jeff Sessions in his opening comments yesterday, in his opening statement. They're being very careful about a female nominee. You're seeing her personality. She has done this before. She's been on the coaching side of previous nominees. And you're seeing that she's engaging with Orrin Hatch. She's very comfortable in the setting.

CORN: But she's not just female. She's probably smarter than any of them and she certainly knows the details better. So they really go at her at their own peril because I think she could twist them or turn them very quickly.

MATTHEWS: I think this is fascinating because I (inaudible) Dick Durbin, the senator from Illinois, the number two Democrat, Susan. And I said have we past the sort of the feminist era – I shouldn't call it the feminist era, the feminist reality. Are we past the sensitivity about a male member of the Senate grilling a female?

(Laughter)

MITCHELL: No!

PAGE: No!

CORN: I'm not weighing in on this one.

(Inaudible)

IFILL: I don't think we are, Chris. I don't think we are.

MATTHEWS: So male-female interrogation has to be done more, what would you say? Give me the verb? Give me the adverb?

IFILL: I think it has to be done with care, with care, with care. We saw it last summer with the Sotomayor hearings where both race and gender were at play. I think some of the most uncomfortable moments that many of us experienced was when some of the Republican senators crossed that line. And so you still have to be careful.

MATTHEWS: Okay give me the ground rules, give me the rules of engagement, professor. Is there a different rule? Let me ask you this: obviously the question of a political role here is relevant because this nominee is a Democrat – has been a Democratic appointee – has voiced views on issues like "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" as a citizen. Where's the line? How hard can they get in the questioning?

IFILL: Well I find this quite astonishing because of course, you know, Justice Scalia was a political part of the Ford administration. Chief Justice Rehnquist came right from the Nixon administration into the Supreme Court. Clarence Thomas was so political that he had to promise to strip down like a runner. So this is not unprecedented that someone with a political background gets nominated to the Supreme Court and it's a little interesting to see the wide-eyed Republicans, you know, talking about her being too political. I think they can't push too far lest she just say, "I'll strip down like a runner, you know, like Clarence Thomas."

1. MSNBC Panel Invokes Anita Hill, Injects Sexism in Kagan Hearing
2. Republicans to boycott Kagan hearing?
3. Republicans to boycott Kagan hearing?; Update: Video added

MSNBC
News Live
6/29/10

10:54 a.m.

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Let's bring in our panel right now on the Supreme Court confirmation hearing. NBC News Chief Foreign Affairs Correspondent Andrea Mitchell, Susan Page, USA Today Washington Bureau Chief, David Corn, Washington Bureau Chief of Mother Jones, he's also a blogger on PoliticsDaily.com, and Sherrilyn Ifill, who's a professor of law at the University of Maryland Law School. Let's go around the panel in that order, your thoughts about this whole topic here is so hot in terms of partisan politics. Traditionally the Republican Party does not like any restraint on spending, the Democrats like to see restraints because they've always believed that, somehow, the other party has an advantage in money. Andrea?

ANDREA MITCHELL, NBC News chief foreign affairs correspondent: This was the case that she lost before the Supreme Court, and so this is positioning by both sides. She clearly has a very good handle on the details of this case, but she was on the losing end of this argument and there's no way that Orrin Hatch and other would ever agree.

MATTHEWS: The "Hillary" movie was a very tough partisan movie put out for general commercial distribution and it was perceived to be a political document by the Democrats.

MITCHELL: It was perceived to be a political document and that was the argument, that it should not be permitted.

MATTHEWS: That it could not be financed by corporate purposes.

MITCHELL: By corporate purposes.

MATTHEWS: Right, David?

DAVID CORN, Mother Jones Washington Bureau Chief: But as we know, the 5-6 justices on the Supreme Court took this case and they expanded it even more so which is what got President Obama and other people riled up and they took a bigger swing at the McCain-Feingold bill, which had been passed by the Senate, which now Solicitor General Kagan is appearing before. And it was decried as judicial activism by people on the left and liberals and The New York Times. So I think Hatch's main political point here is to try and stop that narrative because I think it's really been absorbed that Citizens United went too far as a court decision.

MATTHEWS: And this came out in the president's State of the Union where he took a swipe at the Supreme Court with Samuel Alito and other justices there and they didn't like it.

SUSAN PAGE, USA Today Washington bureau chief: They didn't. You know, it's interesting since Kagan argued this case she feels pretty comfortable with it and you see, I think, a more free-flowing exchange between the Senator and the nominee there then we've seen on some others. Kagan famously called these hearings "vapid and hollow" in the past but we've seen some flashes of humor here this morning. And interestingly, Kagan said that she thought it would be a terrific idea to have TV cameras in the Supreme Court. If she gets confirmed that's an issue where she'll have some real issues with her colleagues.

MATTHEWS: Am I wrong in hearing flashes here of the Anita Hill testimony way back when in the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings? Orrin Hatch has to be very careful. Most voters are female. This is a female nominee, right? They must have that memory. That political memory and almost their intellectual muscle.

MITCHELL: They have learned the lesson. The Senate Judiciary Committee is being very careful, with the exception perhaps of Jeff Sessions in his opening comments yesterday, in his opening statement. They're being very careful about a female nominee. You're seeing her personality. She has done this before. She's been on the coaching side of previous nominees. And you're seeing that she's engaging with Orrin Hatch. She's very comfortable in the setting.

CORN: But she's not just female. She's probably smarter than any of them and she certainly knows the details better. So they really go at her at their own peril because I think she could twist them or turn them very quickly.

MATTHEWS: I think this is fascinating because I (inaudible) Dick Durbin, the senator from Illinois, the number two Democrat, Susan. And I said have we past the sort of the feminist era – I shouldn't call it the feminist era, the feminist reality. Are we past the sensitivity about a male member of the Senate grilling a female?

(Laughter)

MITCHELL: No!

PAGE: No!

CORN: I'm not weighing in on this one.

(Inaudible)

IFILL: I don't think we are, Chris. I don't think we are.

MATTHEWS: So male-female interrogation has to be done more, what would you say? Give me the verb? Give me the adverb?

IFILL: I think it has to be done with care, with care, with care. We saw it last summer with the Sotomayor hearings where both race and gender were at play. I think some of the most uncomfortable moments that many of us experienced was when some of the Republican senators crossed that line. And so you still have to be careful.

MATTHEWS: Okay give me the ground rules, give me the rules of engagement, professor. Is there a different rule? Let me ask you this: obviously the question of a political role here is relevant because this nominee is a Democrat – has been a Democratic appointee – has voiced views on issues like "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" as a citizen. Where's the line? How hard can they get in the questioning?

IFILL: Well I find this quite astonishing because of course, you know, Justice Scalia was a political part of the Ford administration. Chief Justice Rehnquist came right from the Nixon administration into the Supreme Court. Clarence Thomas was so political that he had to promise to strip down like a runner. So this is not unprecedented that someone with a political background gets nominated to the Supreme Court and it's a little interesting to see the wide-eyed Republicans, you know, talking about her being too political. I think they can't push too far lest she just say, "I'll strip down like a runner, you know, like Clarence Thomas."

1. MSNBC Panel Invokes Anita Hill, Injects Sexism in Kagan Hearing
2. Republicans to boycott Kagan hearing?
3. Republicans to boycott Kagan hearing?; Update: Video added

This list inspired "King One Eye" at the Daily Kos to match that effort with "The Eight More Irritating Conservative Celebrities." The writer, Mark Howard, also cross-posted at his vicious media-criticism website called News Corpse, where he posts with the byline of "Mark." He suggested conservative celebrities are all unemployed, no-talent losers: "They ought to think twice before provoking a “Battle of the Irritating Stars.” when they have a far more annoying roster of vexatious celebrities. And it is notable that most of their idols are rejects who have no current career opportunities save for appearances on Fox News and at Tea Parties." The list:

Ben Stein

This hybrid actor/pundit's career was literally built on his being irritating (Bueller?). In the years following that electrifying debut, Stein escalated the breadth of his annoying personality to embrace a free market fantasy that revealed the shallowness of his reputed expertise in economics. Throw in a heap of sexism and a willingness to whore himself out as a spokesperson for disreputable credit schemes and you have a recipe for chronic distemper.

Mel Gibson
Gibson demonstrated his theatrical gifts early in his career. His roles in "The Year of Living Dangerously" and "Mad Max" proved he could tackle depth, action, and humor. Unfortunately, his filmography after that became an almost non-stop succession of vengeance, violence, and scenery chomping as a stand-in for emoting. But what's worse was his submersion into cultist Christianity and anti-Antisemitism. Nothing is quite as irritating as overt hate-speech.

Chuck Norris
Having to watch this no-talent hack embarrass himself through his atrocious movies is bad enough. But having to endure him on the campaign trail is just cruel. His lame attempts to portray Mike Huckabee as a superhero fell as flat as the notion of himself still claiming that mantle despite his advanced age and decrepitude.

Stephen Baldwin
What can I say? Baldwin was never not irritating. He built on that reputation by starring in unreality shows and begging for donations to "restore" himself from bankruptcy. Clearly Stephen's brothers hogged all the talent in the family and selfishly left him a miserable loser and a wretched failure. Come to think of it, he may be more pathetic than irritating.

Jon Voight
This one-hit wonder has managed to keep his name in the papers by having a very public feud with his more famous (and more talented) daughter, Angelina Jolie, and by drinking the Glenn Beck Kool-Aid by the gallon. With a prominent ignorance of history and government, Voight still mouths off about socialist conspiracies and Constitutional abuses that exist only his Beck-infected brain.

Dennis Miller
One of the saddest stories in the entertainment world is the tale of the once promising newcomer who winds up a pathetic has-been and resorts to desperately grasping for attention by any means he can muster. Even if it means becoming a toady for the likes of Bill O'Reilly and dressing up as a born again neo-con. Miller's new persona is devoutly conservative, but he retains his penchant for indecipherably obscure references. Listening to him like sitting through a Xenophanic allocution on Byzantine incandescence.

Ted Nugent
Approaching the nadir of irritatability is the Motor City Jackass himself. Nugent has become a cartoonish proponent of guns and animal massacre. His rants against government spending and social welfare are high decibel testimonials to selfishness and coldhearted disinterest in anyone less fortunate than he is. During the 2008 campaign Nugent brandished machine guns on stage and made obscene threats directed at Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and other Democrats. His behavior crossed the line from irritating to abusive, hostile, and unconscionably grotesque.

He concluded with video of former Saturday Night Live star Victoria Jackson.

1. Daily Kos Whacks ‘Eight Most Irritating Conservative Celebrities,’ Demeans Them as No-Talent ‘Rejects’
2. The Eight Most Irritating Liberal Celebrities
3. Daily Gut: Celebrities Who Make Kids Sick

This list inspired "King One Eye" at the Daily Kos to match that effort with "The Eight More Irritating Conservative Celebrities." The writer, Mark Howard, also cross-posted at his vicious media-criticism website called News Corpse, where he posts with the byline of "Mark." He suggested conservative celebrities are all unemployed, no-talent losers: "They ought to think twice before provoking a “Battle of the Irritating Stars.” when they have a far more annoying roster of vexatious celebrities. And it is notable that most of their idols are rejects who have no current career opportunities save for appearances on Fox News and at Tea Parties." The list:

Ben Stein

This hybrid actor/pundit's career was literally built on his being irritating (Bueller?). In the years following that electrifying debut, Stein escalated the breadth of his annoying personality to embrace a free market fantasy that revealed the shallowness of his reputed expertise in economics. Throw in a heap of sexism and a willingness to whore himself out as a spokesperson for disreputable credit schemes and you have a recipe for chronic distemper.

Mel Gibson
Gibson demonstrated his theatrical gifts early in his career. His roles in "The Year of Living Dangerously" and "Mad Max" proved he could tackle depth, action, and humor. Unfortunately, his filmography after that became an almost non-stop succession of vengeance, violence, and scenery chomping as a stand-in for emoting. But what's worse was his submersion into cultist Christianity and anti-Antisemitism. Nothing is quite as irritating as overt hate-speech.

Chuck Norris
Having to watch this no-talent hack embarrass himself through his atrocious movies is bad enough. But having to endure him on the campaign trail is just cruel. His lame attempts to portray Mike Huckabee as a superhero fell as flat as the notion of himself still claiming that mantle despite his advanced age and decrepitude.

Stephen Baldwin
What can I say? Baldwin was never not irritating. He built on that reputation by starring in unreality shows and begging for donations to "restore" himself from bankruptcy. Clearly Stephen's brothers hogged all the talent in the family and selfishly left him a miserable loser and a wretched failure. Come to think of it, he may be more pathetic than irritating.

Jon Voight
This one-hit wonder has managed to keep his name in the papers by having a very public feud with his more famous (and more talented) daughter, Angelina Jolie, and by drinking the Glenn Beck Kool-Aid by the gallon. With a prominent ignorance of history and government, Voight still mouths off about socialist conspiracies and Constitutional abuses that exist only his Beck-infected brain.

Dennis Miller
One of the saddest stories in the entertainment world is the tale of the once promising newcomer who winds up a pathetic has-been and resorts to desperately grasping for attention by any means he can muster. Even if it means becoming a toady for the likes of Bill O'Reilly and dressing up as a born again neo-con. Miller's new persona is devoutly conservative, but he retains his penchant for indecipherably obscure references. Listening to him like sitting through a Xenophanic allocution on Byzantine incandescence.

Ted Nugent
Approaching the nadir of irritatability is the Motor City Jackass himself. Nugent has become a cartoonish proponent of guns and animal massacre. His rants against government spending and social welfare are high decibel testimonials to selfishness and coldhearted disinterest in anyone less fortunate than he is. During the 2008 campaign Nugent brandished machine guns on stage and made obscene threats directed at Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and other Democrats. His behavior crossed the line from irritating to abusive, hostile, and unconscionably grotesque.

He concluded with video of former Saturday Night Live star Victoria Jackson.

1. Daily Kos Whacks ‘Eight Most Irritating Conservative Celebrities,’ Demeans Them as No-Talent ‘Rejects’
2. The Eight Most Irritating Liberal Celebrities
3. Daily Gut: Celebrities Who Make Kids Sick

As I've mentioned before, I'm putting the finishing touches on my new book, American Taliban, which catalogues the ways in which modern-day conservatives share the same agenda as radical Jihadists in the Islamic  world. But I found myself making certain claims about Republicans that I didn't know if they could be backed up. So I thought, "why don't we ask them directly?" And so, this massive poll, by non-partisan independent pollster Research 2000 of over 2,000 self-identified Republicans, was born.

The results are nothing short of startling.

It's a long poll, so the results are summarized below the fold. For a direct link to the poll's crosstabs, click here.

Ultimately, these results explain why it is impossible for elected Republicans to work with Democrats to improve our country. Their base are conspiracy mongers who don't believe Obama was born in the United States, that he is the second coming of Lenin, and that he is racist against white people. They already want to impeach him despite the glaringly obvious lack of high crimes or misdemeanors. If any Republican strays and decides to do the right thing and try to work in a bipartisan fashion, they suffer primaries and attacks. Even the Maine twins have quit cooperating out of fear of their homegrown teabaggers.  

Given what their base demands, and this poll illustrates them perfectly, it's no wonder the GOP is the party of no.

1. Behold the Food Printer — By: Jonah Goldberg
2. Behold the Food Printer — By: Jonah Goldberg
3. He’s Decided, No He Hasn’t — By: Jonah Goldberg

1. More and More Americans Pro-Life — By: Daniel Foster
2. The Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything — By: Daniel Foster
3. ‘Pro-Life’ Reid Says He Could Back Bill With Abortion Funding — By: Daniel Foster