If you haven't, you might want to check out Mosaic, an online video site with translated newscasts from the Middle East.

They sure do hate Israel over there at Al Jazeera.

For the past day or so the Dems have been challenging the Bush administration to name any of their brethren who are talking about cutting off funds for the Iraq war. The White House should take another look at this explanation of Sen. Carl Levin's proposal, offered as an amendment to the 2007 Defense Appropriations bill.

Levin's proposal was for a phased withdrawal from Iraq and then,

"...during and after the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq, the United States will need to sustain a nonmilitary effort to actively support reconstruction, governance and a durable political solution in Iraq." (emphasis added)

Sounds like a cutoff of funds for any military support to me. When I think about 1974, Levin's proposal sends a shiver up my spine.

Before too many people flee for the holiday weekend, I wanted to alert D.C.-area RCP Blog readers that I'll be speaking Sept. 6 (next Wednesday) at the Cato Institute at noon about my new book, just out from Wiley, The Elephant in the Room: Evangelicals, Libertarians, and the Battle to Control the Republican Party.

You can register to attend here. There will also be a feed online.

I'll be talking about big-government conservatism and the GOP's building identity crisis -- especially what it means for the Republican Party's hold on the eight states of the interior West. And I'll be joined by the famed Michael Barone of U.S. News & World Report and of course coauthor of the Almanac of American Politics, who will offer commentary.

Should be fun. You might even get a free sandwich from the think tank that understands better than any other that there's no such thing as a free lunch.

What in the world is wrong with Republican candidates this year?

From the AP:

Republican Sen. Conrad Burns [R-MT], whose recent comments have stirred controversy, says the United States is up against a faceless enemy of terrorists who "drive taxi cabs in the daytime and kill at night."

Macaca? Taxi cabs? Only Christians should legislate?

At least he didn't mention convenience stores.

TOM ADDS: This is Burns' third outbreak of foot-in-mouth disease in the last six weeks. For an experienced politician, he's sure acting an awful lot like a novice.

President Bush raised a million five for the Corker campaign last night. Get more news on the RCP Politics & Elections page.

A new SurveyUSA poll conducted for 9 News shows Kweisi Mfume leading Ben Cardin, 42-38, with 13 percent undecided. The two Democrats square off in a televised debate tonight at 7pm on Maryland Public Television.

Russ Smith has been watching this race and chastising Cardin for taking it too easy on Mfume. We'll see if Cardin finally decides it's time to take off the gloves.

Anti-war Hillary Clinton primary challenger Jon Tasini is finally getting the MoveOn.org poll he's been itching for, which could throw the online group's endorsement behind him in New York.

According to an email sent out by his campaign just minutes ago:

URGENT! Vote in MoveOn Poll TODAY! Dear Friends,

Your efforts over the last few weeks to encourage MoveOn to poll its members about the New York Senate Democratic primary have succeeded! MoveOn sent out a poll TODAY in the Tasini vs. Clinton race.

If you're a MoveOn member, please check your inbox right NOW for a ballot from MoveOn and vote right away. The poll closes at 11:00 a.m. Friday.

Jonathan needs to get 66% of the vote to win the MoveOn endorsement. Please tell everyone you know who's a New York MoveOn member to check their email right NOW for a ballot from MoveOn, and ask them to vote for the progressive, anti-war Democrat Jonathan Tasini. Remind them that in addition to her vote for the Iraq war and continued support of the occupation, Hillary Clinton supports NAFTA and so-called free-trade agreements that are costing us jobs at home, that she sat on the board of Wal-Mart for six years, opposes single-payer health care, opposes same-sex marriage, and is the second largest recipient of lobbyist money right after Rick Santorum. Tell them that a vote for Jonathan Tasini is a vote to end the war, stop abusive corporate power, and provide Medicare for All.

We're delighted that MoveOn has been so responsive to its membership in sending out this poll. Please reply to them right away, and vote for what you believe in!

Thanks for all you do! We couldn't do it without you.

The primary is Sept. 12, so this will be too late to make much of a difference, even if Tasini does get the required 66 percent. Still, it will be an interesting measure of Hillary's problem or non-problem with the netroots. It's been my contention, so far, that Hillary's ability to avoid a serious primary challenge (as in a protest candidate such as Ned Lamont) shows that she can roll the netroots pretty easily.

Maybe I'm wrong. But I doubt they'll be much of an obstacle on her march to the nomination.

Sure, we have to put up with former President Jimmy Carter saying silly and ridiculous things all the time, but at least we don't have to live with George Galloway.

In case you missed it, here's a YouTube clip of the former British MP in Beirut earlier this week congratulating Hassan Nasrallah for a "historic victory" over Israel and declaring that Tony Blair did everything he could to "intensify" the suffering of the Lebanese people.

If that were not bad enough, today Galloway pens an op-ed for The Guardian in which he writes that Israel must accept a "comprehensive settlement" that includes the right of return for Palestinians, a contiguous Palestinian state with its capital in East Jerusalem and "internationally guaranteed Palestinian control over its land, air, sea and water" - which is more or less a negotiated, less violent version of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's vision of "wiping Israel off the map."

Galloway concludes by saying:

The Arab world is waking up to its potential power. It has seen the Iraqis confound Anglo-American efforts to recolonise their country, the unbreakability, whatever the cost, of the Palestinian resistance, and now the success of Hizbullah. If there is no settlement there can only be war, war and more war, until one day it is Tel Aviv which is on fire and the Israeli leaders' intransigence brings the whole state down on their heads. Nor is it only Israel that will pay the price for continued conflict: the enduring injustice of Palestinian dispossession has already poisoned western-Muslim relations and helped spill violence and hatred on to our own streets. There is still time to choose peace. But make no mistake, with the victory of Hizbullah, a terrible beauty is born.

This is reprehensible stuff, even by Galloway's standards. He needs a good drubbing - and I know just the person to give it to him.

Is it just me, or has the Lieberman campaign created some of the worst political ads in recent history?

This ad has also had the benefit of getting the Lieberman campaign into a ridiculous argument over whether the footage on screen is of a sunrise or a sunset.

As always, send nominations to:

ryan-at-realclearpolitics.com

Rich Lowry says the Dems are "being monumentally stupid in taking the bait of Rumsfeld's speech." He's right. Besides, the Dems don't need to respond to Rumsfeld, because their kindred spirits in the media - particularly on the editorial boards of major metro newspapers - are doing it for them.

For an admittedly less than comprehensive list, see today's editorials in the Boston Globe, Los Angeles Times, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, and Newsday, for starters. There's also William Arkin in the Washington Post, Fred Kaplan in Slate, and Dan Wasserman's cartoon in the Boston Globe.

Here's a lesson for people running for office: don't start spouting off statistics during radio or television interviews unless you're sure about them - especially if you're discussing white hot subjects like race and abortion.

Wow. Paul Hackett makes an ass of himself on national cable television with an angry, unhinged, ad hominem attack. Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid must be patting themselves on the back for forcing this guy out of the Ohio Senate race.

Stephen Bainbridge argues that "Democrats need to talk about the war, while Republicans need to talk about something else." Kevin Drum generally agrees, though from a slightly different angle.

Give Mark Warner points for this much: He really wants to court the Internet crowd. I just got this in from his PAC, Forward Together:

GOVERNOR MARK WARNER GOES VIRTUAL IN "SECOND LIFE" ~First American political figure to hold an event in the virtual world~ Alexandria, Virginia-- Imagine a world where politicians tell the truth, focus on the future, and work together with their fellow citizens to solve problems. Forward Together PAC is working everyday to make that a reality. And it isn't stopping at the boundaries of physical space. Tomorrow Governor Warner will become the first American political leader to engage in the online virtual world, Second Life.

Governor Warner, in the shape of an animated avatar, will enter into Second Life this Thursday afternoon (August 31st) at 3:30 p.m. Eastern to announce the first-ever virtual-world town hall on American politics later this fall. The Governor will conduct a brief interview with Second Life's embedded reporter, Hamlet Au, and officially launch Forward Together PAC's new Second Life group.

"Since I left the Virginia governor's office this year, I've traveled across the country to 24 states helping solutions-oriented candidates campaign for congressional and statehouse races," said Governor Warner. "In Second Life, distances and time differences vanish. It will allow us to reach people through a whole new medium."

"Social technologies can be great tools for political change, and virtual worlds like Second Life might be the next tool for engaging people in the real world democratic process," said Governor Warner. "We want to use Second Life to continue the conversation about the direction of our country. My avatar is also pretty funny looking. That alone makes it worth checking out."

For those interested, here's the Web page for Second Life. What you might notice right off the bat is that the virtual world is full of a lot of avatars of busty women in bikinis. This is clearly the political medium of the future.

Should be interesting.

Today Stan Greenberg and Matt Hogan of Democracy Corps released a strategy memo for 2006 built around the results of a post-election survey (pdf) from the 2005 Virginia Governor's race. Dem Corps interviewed 2,300 Virginians last fall, including 600 registered voters who did not turn out to vote. Here are the key findings:

* Failure to mobilize the Republican base doomed Kilgore. The demoralization of Bush voters and lack of enthusiasm for Kilgore seriously hindered the Republican candidate's chances, underscoring the dangers of taking the base for granted.

* Non-voters were disillusioned with Bush, unimpressed by Kilgore. Those who voted in 2004 but not in 2005 overwhelmingly supported Bush over Kerry, but mounting frustration with Bush and a lack of fondness for Kilgore prevented them from turning out. While many incumbents will be better received by voters than Kilgore, the impact of the disillusionment with Bush highlights why it is so important for progressives to tie incumbents to Bush.

* Positive agenda was crucial to winning over swing voters. While Kilgore alienated voters with his attacks on Kaine's position on the death penalty, Kaine reaped the benefits by focusing on education, an issue that was of particular importance to both his base and swing voters.

* Republicans voter outreach program is not to be underestimated. Although Kilgore's turnout effort came up short, his campaign was much more effective at contacting both base and swing voters, as well as those who were still undecided in the final days of the campaign.

* Essential to have sufficient resources for the final few weeks of the campaign. Nearly one in five voters did not to decide who to vote for until the last few days of the campaign and 40 percent held off until October.

Regarding this last point, see Perry Bacon, Jr. in Time.com. Democrats clearly have the edge in enthusiasm and the political wind at their backs, but Republicans have a slight edge in money and a generally superior ground game. Whether that will be enough to save the GOP majority or simply mitigate the size of the Dem wave in November remains to be seen. As I said the other day, the second half of the game doesn't even start until next Tuesday.

But of course. Senator Stevens may want to reconsider his comment that the Internet is "not a truck" because when bloggers get done with him I suspect he's going to feel like he was hit by one.

It should come as no surprise that former Iranian president Mohammad Khatami would be coming here for the annual UN anniversary celebration. And granting him a visa to do so is also no surprise. And, unfortunately, there is also no surprise in Harvard is offering Khatami a forum to spread his "message," or for our worst former president, Jimmy Carter, to be offering to meet with Khatami.

Khatami was Iran's president from 1997 to 2005, part of the time the mullahcracy was diddling the EU in the now-years-long nuclear kabuki dance. The White House - according to a Washington Post report - says that Khatami is free to meet and speak freely while visiting America. Mr. Carter has no standing to deal with Iran, so what harm can he do? Maybe the same he did in the Der Spiegel and Daily Telegraph interviews earlier this month.

Of Iran, Carter has specific memories. His presidency foundered on the 1979 Tehran hostage crisis. Perhaps he and Khatami can have a meaningful discussion. One that is, as the Post report cites a source saying, "poignant." It is a comfort to know that Carter's talk with Khatami won't be part of the "serious" talks Iran suggests it will have with us.

For a long time, the rosiest polls for John McCain regarding the 2008 GOP primary were coming from the Cook Political Report. Not anymore.

Previously, a Cook Political Report/RT Strategies Poll (June 1-4, 2006) had found McCain up as follows (among Republicans and leaners):

McCain - 29%

Giuliani - 24%

Romney - 8%

Field WITHOUT Giuliani:

McCain - 37%
Romney - 10%
Gingrich - 9%

Now, the same poll, taken August 25-27, finds Rudy solidly in the lead:

Giuliani - 32%

McCain - 20%

Gingrich - 10%

Field WITHOUT Giuliani:

McCain - 30%
Gingrich - 14%
Frist - 11%

"Thinking about Rudy Giuliani, some people say he really cleaned up NYC as Mayor and made it a safer place, and then he showed real courage as a leader after the attack on the WTC. Other people say that his views on some issues -- because he is pro-choice on abortion, and supports gun control and gay rights -- make it hard for them to support him for Pres."

Which Is Closer To Your View? (GOPers only): Now vs. 2/26

GOPers should nominate Giuliani for pres.: 56% vs. 50%
GOPers should not nominate Giuliani for pres.: 38% vs. 43%

Note that the last question there is very important -- how do Republicans line up when pushed on Giuliani's supposedly candidacy-sinking social views? Answer: They still support him. And despite the constant refrain that the more Republicans learn about Rudy the more they'll recoil, his numbers actually seem to be getting better with time.

GiulianiBlog has more analysis of the results and the full cross tabs. Giuliani's supporters, it seems from the cross tabs, are more conservative and more pro-Bush than McCain's, who are, unsurprisingly, fairly liberal.

Rudy might not run. Or there might be other reasons he won't win. But the idea that he's unacceptable to the conservative base is refuted again and again and again by the polls and the facts on the ground in states like South Carolina.

A clip from Bush's interview last night with NBC's Brian Williams in New Orleans:

The highlight is when Bush seems to describe his reading list as "epileptic." (Of course he meant "eclectic" -- he kind of starts with one word and ends with the other.)

As always, send nominations to:

ryan-at-realclearpolitics.com

God help the poor, piggy senator behind the "secret hold" on S.2590.

Whoever this Porky Pig lawmaker is, you can take it to the bank that he/she isn't getting much sleep these days. And, if this senator is sleeping (with the help of handfuls of Ambien no doubt), they're likely dreaming of a way out of the wretched mess they created for themselves.

Here's a question: Why in the world would any above-board lawmaker attempt to shelve this pork transparency legislation?

What's so scary about a little old website that would allow voters to see where their own hard-earned tax dollars are going? What the heck are they so afraid of?

It's great to see the power of the blogosphere on this one. Both sides have come together calling for an end to the earmark madness. As Martha is apt to saying, "This is a good thing."

From Glenn Reynolds of both Porkbusters and Instapundit (who deserves credit for spearheading this whole thing) to the fiscally responsible Club for Growth's Andy Roth, all the way across the political spectrum to the lefties over at Daily Kos, bloggers have spoken in one unified voice and have issued their edict: NO MORE PORK.

It isn't everyday that you see virtually unanimous agreement from the left and right. But, when you do, whenever both sides of our polarized, political divide rally together against an "as-yet" unidentified lawmaker; whenever red and blue voters join hands and turn purple in a common cause, well, you've just got to know that they're on to something.

After all, this is our money lawmakers are playing around with, not theirs. Much of Washington seems to have forgotten this fact, which is why cancerous pork-barrel earmarking skyrocketed to around 13,000 earmarks this year, costing taxpayers $64 billion dollars. It is also the reason why some shady senator sees fit to put a secret hold on valuable legislation that would help clean up this earmark nightmare.

When you consider the resounding success of President Bush's tax cuts, and all the money that's been pouring into the Treasury as a result, you've got to shake your head in disbelief and think: Had their been some fiscal accountability in Congress this year, some tightening of the budget belt, we'd be in a far better budgetary position.

God help this poor lawmaker. Porky may get roasted.

The Nation has dug up an old photo (well, just from 1996) of Allen with leaders of the segregationist Council of Conservative Citizens.

The CCC's statement of principles gives a pretty good flavor of things:

We also oppose all efforts to mix the races of mankind, to promote non-white races over the European-American people through so-called "affirmative action" and similar measures, to destroy or denigrate the European-American heritage, including the heritage of the Southern people, and to force the integration of the races.

Allen's not the only Republican to have winked at the CCC. But he's the only one who was -- until recently -- considered a serious candidate for the presidency in 2008.

Stuart Taylor, Jr. unloads - and I mean unloads - on the New York Times for its recent front pager on the Duke Lacrosse case authored by Duff Wilson and Jonathan Glater. (You can read what I wrote about the NYT piece last week here).

In a related nugget of embarassing news for Durham DA Mike Nifong, yesterday a judge threw out the three year old misdemeanor shoplifting charges Nifong's office brought against Moezeldin Ahmed Elmostafa, the taxi driver who is central to indicted Duke Lacrosse player Reade Seligmann's alibi. The Durham Herald-Sun reports:

Several defense lawyers had accused District Attorney Mike Nifong of bringing the misdemeanor shoplifting charge against Elmostafa as a pressure tactic in the controversial rape case.

In April, Elmostafa signed a sworn affidavit saying he drove Duke lacrosse player Reade Seligmann to a bank machine, a fast-food restaurant and a campus dorm at about the time an exotic dancer claimed she was raped by Seligmann and two others at 610 N. Buchanan Blvd. in mid-March.

A month later, Elmostafa was arrested on a 2003 warrant charging him with shoplifting at the Hecht's department store at Northgate Mall. The charge was reduced to aiding and abetting earlier this month.

The prosecutor in the case said he was the one who had the warrant served against Elmostafa and denied there was any motive to intimidate. He says the reason the DA's office waited three years to bring charges is because there had been a misspelling of Elmostafa's name. With Nifong's credibility already in the tank, that seems farfetched. Read the rest of the story and decide for yourself.

First Juan Cole, now Michael Isikoff and David Corn. Christopher Hitchens nimbly points out the hypocrisy and sheer chutzpah of Isikoff and Corn being instrumental players in ginning up allegations that Plamegate was a blatant Bush administration hit job, and then turning around (and making money on a book, no less) and fingering Richard Armitage as Novak's original source. In other words, there was never any "there there."

This is how Corn responded on his blog last night after Hitchens' story went up:

A bunch of emails arrived today from people asking for (or, demanding) a response to Christopher Hitchens' attack in Slate on me and my coauthor Michael isikoff. I'm going to refrain from taking the bait, as we prepare for next week's release of our book. HUBRIS has plenty in it to discomfort anyone taking his or her cues from my former colleague.

Interesting. Corn's credibility is evaporating faster than a martini in Hyannisport and he says he is not going to "take the bait" - which is a euphemism for "answer legitimate questions." Corn concludes by saying that his book is "far more about the fraudulent selling of the war than the leak case." The question at hand, however, is the media's fraudulent selling of the leak case and David Corn's central role in it.

Plamegate is turning out to be, as some have suspected, exactly the opposite of what we've been led to believe. It was not a revenge-inspired hit job by the Bush administration, but an example of D.C.'s insider culture at its worst: a public, partisan and dubious attack launched in the op-ed pages of the country's biggest newspaper, followed by innocent gossip between a reporter and a high-level official (and the subsequent shameful silence of that official influenced by interdepartment fears and rivalries), followed by a firestorm of media speculation and innuendo, followed by an investigation, followed by an indictment of obstruction of justice for a crime that was never committed, followed by revelations that the whole thing wasn't what it was portrayed to be by critics of the administration and the media.

Like many people, I despised Andre Agassi when he first showed up on the national tennis scene with his long hair and his "image is everything" persona. Now, like millions of fans, Agassi is one of my favorite figures in all of sports.

Agassi is playing in his final U.S. Open, which will also be the final tournament of his career. Yesterday he needed 3 1/2 hours to come back and beat Andrei Pavel in his opening match, as 20,000 fans stood in Flushing Meadows and cheered him on at match point.

Las Vegas Weekly put together a tribute to Agassi which includes a brief piece by David Granger, the editor of Esquire, and another by Ron Kantowski, a sportswriter for the Las Vegas Sun.

The gem of the bunch, in my opinion, is this piece by Andrew Corsello, a writer for GQ Magazine, in which Corsello recounts his first encounter with the 8 year-old tennis phenom from Las Vegas. It is an absolute scream. But it also pinpoints the origin of Agassi's brashness: his extraordinary talent and gift for the game which precious few players have known.

It's been a marvelous journey to watch Agassi's transformation from a cocky young kid into a humble, hardworking man who has fans cheering his every point and now hoping the magic will last just two more weeks. Whatever the outcome at the U.S. Open, I, for one, am going to miss seeing Agassi's now trademarked bald head, his pigeon-toed shuffle, but most of all, his heart.

(Photo: Ann Heisenfelt, Associated Press)

UPDATE: Here's a nice tribute to Agassi's final appearance at Wimbledon on YouTube:

How unpopular, you ask?

So unpopular that CNN.com's running an online poll of who would win a debate between Bush and Ahmadinejad, and Ahmadinejad is winning by 63%-37% (with more than 70,000 votes cast).

Yes, yes -- it's an online poll. But would Hitler have out-polled FDR, even on a CNN "QuickVote"?

Majority Leader Bill Frist presses the issue of the secret hold placed on S. 2590, the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act. Frist writes on his blog:

It is deeply ironic that bipartisan legislation dedicated to transparency in government has been obstructed by the least transparent possible means. But I've not given up ... and neither has a united blogosphere.

Led by sites like PorkBusters, TPM Muckraker, and GOP Progress, online activists across the political spectrum have worked to clear away the obstruction against this bill through hard work and the process of elimination. While the count is still climbing, they have publicly received a response from 89 Senators regarding the secret hold - and I'm proud to say that members of my online grassroots organization, the iFrist Volunteers, have made a major contribution to this effort in calling Senators and securing their promise they have not held up the bill, nor will they hold up the bill. The growing success of this effort perfectly demonstrates the value of the database that S. 2590 would create ... because it proves that Americans with a passion for citizen journalism and empowered by technology can cooperate across party lines to make a real difference.

So, to get this bill passed, I am calling on all members, when asked by the blog community, to instruct their staff to answer whether or not they have a hold, honestly and transparently, so I can pass this bill. And I encourage Minority Leader Reid to do the same.

All I can say is that whoever is blocking this bill had better hope they're not up for reelection in November - assuming we find out who it is before then.

You like nice, concise analysis? Here's Orin Judd summing up Rudy Giuliani's presidential prospects in 21 words:

He can't run in IA, can't beat McCain in NH and then is a non-starter in SC. He won't run.

How about a nice, 54-word movie review? Try Louis Wittig in the Daily Standard:

There's almost nothing you need to know about the movie Snakes on a Plane that you didn't get from the title. Samuel L. Jackson gets on a trans-Pacific flight. A few hundred poisonous snakes get loose in the cabin. Samuel L. Jackson handles it in a way that Richard Gere probably wouldn't have. The end.

Some folks are making the argument that the Club for Growth is hurting the Republican Party. Over in The Corner, Ramesh Ponnuru offers a refreshing defense of ideology over partisanship.

Essentially, holding a majority doesn't mean anything if that majority has no principles.

The National Republican Senatorial Committee has put out a harsh ad attacking Steve Laffey, conservative primary challenger to Sen. Lincoln Chaffee in Rhode Island.

The ad hits Laffey hard on immigration:

As always, send nominations to:

ryan-at-realclearpolitics.com

Anytime you see an obviously far left-leaning publication do a story on a Republican (or a far right one writing about a Democrat, for that matter) you have to approach it under the assumption that it's probably been constructed as a hit job - though some are done much more deftly than others.

That being said, this piece on Illinois Republican Congressman Jerry Weller in the Chicago Reader is fascinating. In 2004, Weller married to a top member of Guatemala's parliament, Zury Rios Sosa, who also happens to be the daughter of former dictator and head of her political party, General Efrain Rios Montt. Complicating matters is that Weller serves as Vice-Chairman of the House Subcommittee on the Western Hemisphere whose jurisdiction includes issues involving Latin America.

The Reader piece alleges that Weller's marriage to Sosa has caused him to be silent on matters involving Guatemala, including drug trafficking and human rights. I don't know enough to say whether there's any truth to the charge, but Weller's unique relationship seems, at least on the surface, to represent somewhat of a conflict of interest. Read the story and decide for yourself.

As if anyone needed further proof of the outright anti-Semitism behind the Walt-Mearsheimer Israel Lobby paper, check out this dispatch from Dana Milbank in the Washington Post. In the words of Stephen Colbert, all you need to know: "At the invitation of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), they held a forum at the National Press Club to expand on their allegations about the Israel lobby."

It's really a tour de force of anti-Semitic tropes, from the dynamic duo's usual focus on Bush administration officials with Jewish last names to Walt telling a gaggle of Arab admirers that if one criticizes Israel in America, "it might have some economic consequences for your business."

And then there's this at the end:

Before leaving for an interview with al-Jazeera, Mearsheimer accepted a button proclaiming "Walt & Mearsheimer Rock. Fight the Israel Lobby."

"I like it," he said, beaming.

Beam away, Nazi.

Don't miss the latest episode of the Glenn and Helen Show. This week's guest is Judge Richard Posner, and he discusses terrorism, surveillance, and civil liberties in the context of the Constitution and the U.S. court system. It's all the subject matter of his new book, "Not a Suicide Pact."

A lot of criticism this morning for citing a Zogby Interactive poll on the Virginia Senate race. In short: The criticism's right.

The race is definitely tightening in the wake of Allen's Macaca comments, but that particular poll doesn't deserve any weight -- the methodology's just junk. Some better polls are here.

Somebody should have told this reporter he could have saved himself a lot of trouble by going to Connecticut to cover the Democratic Senate primary.

This shot of Rita Cosby and John Mark Karr perfectly captures the distasteful nature of today's tabloid media culture:

(Photo: Jack Dempsey, Associated Press)

Josh Feit writes in the Stranger this week that Maria Cantwell has finally found her footing with an antiwar message that sells:

On Saturday, August 19, at a Maria Cantwell rally just outside Vancouver, Washington, the U.S. Democratic senator scored the biggest cheers of the afternoon with her new and improved position on the war. "Changing the agenda means changing the course in Iraq," Senator Cantwell said, to a burst of applause. "The president says we can stay there for as long as it takes. I disagree. I say, 'Let's make sure... we start to bring our troops home at the end of this year.'"

Upon closer inspection, Feit finds that while Cantwell's "new and improved" position seems to be placating the antiwar base of the Democratic party in Washington, it's more of a rhetorical smoke-and-mirror job than a real substantive shift. Nevertheless, if Cantwell can succeed in bringing even a portion of these people home before November it will be a solid boost to her campaign.

Right now, Cantwell's lead over Republican Mike McGavick stands at 9 points. That number is inflated a bit by a new SurveyUSA poll showing her with a 17-point lead. Three other polls released in the last two weeks show the race between 5 and 8 points. The first batch of polls after Labor Day will show exactly where this race stands. If Cantwell busts out to a double digit lead in the RCP average, the race is probably over. If McGavick can keep it close - meaning 5-7 points or better - with the debates and a bit of luck, he'll make it to election day with at least a chance of scoring an upset.

The accursed NY Times firewall hides a very interesting column by John Tierney this morning, reporting on the mood at a recent libertarian conference in Amsterdam (where else?) sponsored by Reason Magazine (who else?). Tierney writes:

I have bad news for the G.O.P. regarding that promising new bloc of voters, the South Park Republicans. It turns out they're not Republicans, at least not anymore. [snip]

The G.O.P. used to have a sizable libertarian bloc, but I couldn't see any sign of it at the conference. [Matt] Stone and [Trey] Parker [the creators of South Park] said they were rooting for Hillary Clinton in 2008 simply because it would be weird to have her as president. The prevailing sentiment among the rest of the libertarians was that the best outcome this November would be a Democratic majority in the House, because then at least there'd be gridlock.

"We're the long-suffering, battered spouse in a dysfunctional political marriage of convenience," said Nick Gillespie, the editor in chief of Reason. "Most of the libertarians I know have given up on the G.O.P. The odds that we'll stick around for the midterm election are about as good as the odds that Rick Santorum will join the Village People."

This is definitely a warning sign for the GOP, and yet another reason why Republicans are struggling this year. I'll try to come back with more on this later, and I'm sure Ryan Sager will have something to say about Tierney's column as well, given that he's one of the aforementioned disgruntled libertarians and has already taken a look at the size, scope, and potential damage caused to the GOP by massive libertarian defections.

Explaining her recent, odd, and disturbing comments about the separation of church and state (and how it is a "myth"), Katherine Harris has offered a wonderful explanation:

"My comments were specifically directed toward a Christian group," said Harris, a Republican senate candidate from Longboat Key.

C'mon! I was just pandering!

In Virginia, in the wake of Macaca-gate, Sen. George Allen and his Democratic challenger, James Webb, are now in a dead heat. This is a departure from Allen's consistent lead previously.

In related news, Giuliani will be at a fundraiser for Allen on Wednesday. Standing behind Sen. Macaca right now is, despite it all, probably a fairly safe choice and a decent way to stay on the "right" side of the conservative base.

And so it begins. Matt Stoller of MyDD leads the nutroot charge against Rahm Emanuel:

I've noted on multiple occasions the whiny tendencies of Rahm Emanuel. Rather than running on a progressive winning set of messeages [sic], Rahm has decided that primping before the press as 'Rahmbo' while whining about progressives will give him a win-win. If we win the house, he's a hero. If we lose the House, it's because of bloggers/Al Sharpton/Lamont/ Moveon/Soros/Pelosi. [snip]

And I hear a lot that even though progressives don't agree with him, he's at least a strategist. Let me just say that no he is not. Party strategists do not scream at major donors in public to journalists, because if they do then they create a disincentive for participation. Party strategists do not attack progressives in a progressive year and create policy platforms that immediately discount Democratic ability to accomplish anything. Party strategists do not race-bait against African-American leaders. Party strategists force candidates to do a good job, not to hire the right consultants. Party strategists do not call a right-wing Independent that needs Republican votes to win in Connecticut a 'Democrat'.

Rahm Emanuel is not a party strategist. He is an extremist ideologue, a Bourbon Democrat, and he will be a huge problem for progressives moving forward. Progressives would do well to develop our own set of strategic coordinators, rather than thinking that someone like Rahm Emanuel is at this point anything but destructive and selfish.

Excuse me while I wipe down my computer keyboard. I spit Diet Coke all over it after reading Stoller, of all people, fingering Rahm Emanuel an "extremist ideologue." This is the sort of stuff that should scare sensible Democrats out of their minds. Rahm is a centrist. He's a Clintonite. Six years ago years ago that wasn't a sin. Now to a growing portion of the party, it's grounds for excommunication. Apparently, unless you've taken a heavy pull from the nutroot Kool-Aid, you're not welcome or wanted.

Rahm may be arrogant, abrasive and heavy-handed in his tactics, but he also happens to be pretty darn good at his job, which is recruiting candidates, raising money, and putting together a solid message and ground game. He's doing his best to keep Democrats enough in the middle of the road to win in November, and folks like Stoller would do a lot better to listen to him than fragging him and trying to run him out of town.

The WSJ's John Harwood on election spending trends so far this season. For more, bookmark the RCP Resource Center, updated frequently with election-related transcripts and video.