K.C. Johnson runs down the latest reaction to the ethics investigation against Durham DA Mike Nifong, including a link to this cartoon by Kevin Siers in today's Charlotte Observer:

Duncan Hunter's '08 Presidential juggernaut picked up a key endorsement yesterday: Arizona Rep. Trent Franks:

One of Arizona's most conservative U.S. House members is endorsing a California congressman over Sen. John McCain for the 2008 GOP presidential nomination, saying it is "what's right for America." [snip]

Franks said he knows that his early backing of the lesser-known Hunter will raise eyebrows, given that his own state's senior senator is considering a run for the White House.

But without criticizing McCain directly, Franks described Hunter as a candidate who "is an unequivocal social conservative and fiscal conservative and has a consistent conservative voting record." [snip]

Franks described Hunter as "a bold, Valley Forge, Ronald Reagan Republican who holds the temperament and philosophical foundations to lead this country to its greatest heights yet."

A Valley Forge Republican? That's a new one. I"m afraid Franks has a long way to go to get people to buy into the comparison of Duncan Hunter to Ronald Reagan. Franks says his 'dis of McCain is "nothing personal." I'm sure McCain will say the same thing to Franks when the time comes...

What do Rosie O'Donnell and George W. Bush have in common? They're both stupid, according to Donald Trump.

Trump on Rosie to the Associated Press: "I've exposed Rosie for what she is: a very dumb human being. She's got no intelligence, but I've known that for a long time."

Trump on Bush to Maureen Dowd: "Bush will go down as the worst and by far the dumbest president in history."

Gerald Ford was a good and gracious man.

He was a dedicated and honest public servant--well liked by all who knew him personally. And I think his controversial pardon of Richard Nixon was a good idea--good in the sense that it got it off the table so the country could move on.

However, President Ford was one of a long line of American executives who presided over the decline of the U.S. in both national security and economic terms. This began under LBJ and stretched out through Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and Jimmy Carter.

In national security terms, Mr. Ford was a détentist who accommodated the Soviet Union in a number of ways, including unverifiable arms control deals that Ronald Reagan put an end to when the Gipper assumed the presidency in the 1980's.

The U.S.'s Vietnam retreat from the rooftop of our embassy in Saigon was one of the low points in the history of American foreign policy--a disgraceful action. Reagan, of course, changed all this in the 1980's with his many actions to overturn and defeat Soviet communism.

In economic policy, Mr. Ford was a traditional Republican budget balancer who had no pro-growth policies. Arthur Laffer tried to persuade Ford of the merits of supply side economics to reduce marginal tax rates and grow the American economy--but Ford, acting on advice of top economic advisor Alan Greenspan, rejected this.

Jude Wanniski called this root canal economics and Newt Gingrich described Ford's futile obsession with the budget deficit as simply the tax collector for the welfare state.

The combination of high inflation interacting with high marginal tax rates led to stagflation and the continued decline of the American economy. And the infamous "whip inflation now" program was nothing more than price controls and state planning.

Again, it took Ronald Reagan to reverse all this by adopting the incentive-minded growth model which slashed tax rates and reignited the U.S. economy in the 1980's - an economy whose fire still burns brightly a quarter of a century later.

At the end of the day, Ford was defeated by Jimmy Carter, who was just as baffled about stagflation and Soviet hegemony as Ford was.

Mr. Ford attempted one last play on the national political stage at the 1980 Republican National Convention in Detroit. Reagan had soundly trounced Papa Bush in the primaries to capture the nomination. But the Papa Bush forces--led by James Baker--attempted a bizarre co-presidency that would have made Ford the vice president and divided up all the executive branch responsibilities.

Reagan himself squashed this, chose Papa Bush instead, crushed Carter in the election, and went on to become one of the greatest presidents in United States history.

Thank God for Ronald Reagan.

On the heels of the new poll in Iowa earlier this week showing Barack Obama tied with John Edwards atop the Dem field and Hillary plummeting to fourth place with 10%, Research 2000 has another 2008 poll out this morning for New Hampshire, conducted for the Concord Monitor from December 18 through December 20, 2006.

On the Dem side, Obama has leapt into a statistical dead heat with Hillary. For the GOP, Giuliani and McCain are neck and neck:

Democrats
Hillary Clinton 22%
Barack Obama 21%
John Edwards 16%
Al Gore 10%
John Kerry 7%
Wesley Clark 4%
Dennis Kucinich 4%
Joe Biden 2%
Tom Vilsack 2%
Evan Bayh2%
Bill Richardson 2%
Undecided 8%

Republicans
Rudy Giuliani 26%
John McCain 25%
Mitt Romney 10%
Newt Gingrich 8%
Condi Rice 6%
George Pataki 3%
Jeb Bush 1%
George Allen 1%
Sam Brownback 1%
Rick Santorum 1%
Duncan Hunter 0%
Undecided 18%

At first blush the horserace numbers don't look too terrible for Hillary - and certainly much better than they did in Iowa. I suppose Hillary's numbers could have been worse, especially if you remember the Boston Herald story from early August reporting on the animosity New Hampshire Dems had toward Hillary,calling her names like a "shrew" and an "evil, power-mad witch."

But, as in Iowa, the real problem for Clinton in the New Hampshire poll is in the hypothetical head to head matchups. Here they are:

Obama 47, McCain 43
Obama 46, Giuliani 39
Obama 48, Romney 29

Edwards 44, McCain 44
Edwards 41, Giuliani 40
Edwards 46, Romney 30

Giuliani 42, Clinton 38
Giuliani 39, Kerry 37
Giuliani 40, Gore 37

McCain 46, Clinton 43
McCain 45, Kerry 40
McCain 46, Gore 39

Clinton 45, Romney 31
Kerry 40, Romney 32
Gore 38, Romney 32

Just like in Iowa, Hillary loses to Rudy and McCain but beats Romney. And just like in Iowa, Obama beats them all. Edwards doesn't run as strong in New Hampshire as in Iowa - no surprise there - but he still manages a dead heat against McCain and Giuliani and handily beats Romney. So even though Hillary is clinging to a lead at the top of the field, she's once again giving off the "unelectable" vibe in comparison to her two most serious primary challengers.

After the Chicago Tribune broke the story about Barack Obama's curious land deal with indicted political bagman Tony Rezko, Obama told the Tribune editorial board in a subsequent meeting it was a "boneheaded" move on his part but that he'd never done "done favors for [Rezko] of any sort."

Today, the Tribune runs what purports to be a "gotcha" story on Obama's claim, though the fare is pretty darn weak:

Obama intern had ties to Rezko
Senator's spokesman denies any favoritism
By David Jackson and Ray Gibson
Tribune staff reporters
Published December 24, 2006

Political fundraiser Antoin "Tony" Rezko made a modest pitch to Sen. Barack Obama last year.

Rezko recommended a 20-year-old student from Glenview for one of the coveted summer internships in Obama's Capitol Hill office.

The student got the job and spent five weeks in Washington, answering Obama's front office phone and logging constituent mail. The student was paid an $804 stipend--about $160 a week--for a position valued mostly for the experience it provides.

But now that otherwise unremarkable internship--one of nearly 100 Obama's office awarded in 2005--raises new questions for the senator, who says he has never done any favors for Rezko.

Please. If we went and made a federal case over every Congressional internship that's been doled out over the years to the child of a friend or political contributor we'd run out of trees and ink by next Thursday.

The full context of Obama's remark about doing "favors" for Rezko - which the Trib, to its credit, included later in the article - was this:

Most of the time, I've never been in a position to do favors for him. I don't control jobs. I don't control contracts. There were no bills that he was pushing when I was in the state legislature that I know of or that he talked to me about. And there were no bills in federal legislation that he was concerned about, so there was no sense of the betrayal of the public trust here."

Parsing that statement over one of 98 five-week internships given out by Obama's office borders on being a joke. On Wednesday, Conor Clarke wrote in The New Republic that Obama's real-estate deal with Rezko was a "non-scandal" and that the new Senator was being held to a different standard than the rest.

I had planned on slamming Clarke for the simple reason that Obama's association with a shady dealer like Rezko is a reflection of Obama's judgment and character and is totally fair game, in the same way that Rudy Giuliani's association with Bernie Kerik will undoubtedly be used against him - as it was the other day by Charlie Rangel .

I still believe that, and if more serious details about Obama's direct dealings with Rezko emerge, they should be given fair scrutiny. But the Trib's over the top treatment of this internship has me wondering if there isn't more to Clarke's argument than I originally thought.

From Reuters:

Jakarta's busy international airport introduced an iris scanner system aimed at business travellers willing to pay around $US200 ($A255) per year to avoid long immigration lines.

Under the ''Saphire'' program, frequent flyers register with the immigration authorities, pay the annual fee, and submit to scans of their left and right eyes, which authorities say are as individual as prints of the fingers or palm.

On arrival, users scan one eye and are cleared for entry, a process expected to take about 10 seconds.

Check out the results of the new Iowa poll, conducted by Research 2000 for KCCI-TV from December 18 through December 20:

Democrats
John Edwards 22%
Barack Obama 22%
Tom Vilsack 12%
Hillary Clinton 10%
Al Gore 7%
John Kerry 5%
Wesley Clark 4%
Dennis Kucinich 4%
Joe Biden 1%
Evan Bayh 1%
Bill Richardson 1%
Undecided 11%

Republicans
John McCain 27%
Rudy Giuliani 26%
Mitt Romney 9%
Newt Gingrich 7%
Condi Rice 4%
George Pataki 1%
Jeb Bush 1%
George Allen 1%
Sam Brownback 1%
Rick Santorum 1%
Duncan Hunter 0%
Undecided 22%

Hypothetical matchups among all survey respondents are as follows:

Obama 42, McCain 39
Obama 43, Giuliani 38
Obama 43, Romney 28

Edwards 42, McCain 39
Edwards 42, Giuliani 38
Edwards 41, Romney 29

McCain 43, Clinton 37
McCain 43, Kerry 38
McCain 41, Gore 39

Giuliani 39, Clinton 35
Giuliani 38, Kerry 34
Giuliani 36, Gore 34

Vilsack 41, McCain 35
Vilsack 42, Giuliani 35
Vilsack 45, Romney 28

Clinton 40, Romney 30
Kerry 33, Romney 30
Gore 34, Romney 28

Summarizing these results: Obama, Edwards and Vilsack beat every Republican. Hillary loses to every Republican but Romney. Romney loses to every Democrat. McCain runs slightly better than Giuliani matching up against most of the Dem field.

This poll looks like Hillary Clinton's worst nightmare in that it clearly reinforces the biggest knock against her which is that she can't win the general election.

Ralph Z. Hallow of the Washington Times on Rudy:

Social conservatives -- contrary to conventional wisdom -- will seriously consider supporting the Republican presidential aspirations of Rudolph W. Giuliani even though he's a pro-choice, anti-gun New Yorker, political analysts and operatives say.

That sounds vaguely familiar.

Hallow includes quotes from a number of GOP activists, including an utterly predictable slam from conservative Richard Viguerie:

"If Rudy Giuliani -- who is wrong on all of the social issues as well as the Second Amendment and is a blank slate on most other important issues such as judges, taxes and size of government -- is the Republican presidential nominee, I would expect a mass exit of most conservatives from the Republican Party in 2008," warns Richard A. Viguerie, a prominent conservative-movement fundraiser and author.

Viguerie is whistling past the graveyard. The only way Rudy can win the nomination is by convincing enough conservatives that he's acceptable, and if he'is able to do that, then by definition there won't be a "mass exodus" of conservatives in 2008.

Moreover, any support Rudy might lose from conservatives in the general election will be more than offset by his appeal among Independents, moderates, and even some Democrats (depending on who their nominee is). So while Viguerie is trying to bully and exert influence over the process, what he's really doing is threatening to marginalize himself and other hardcore conservatives.

Again, I want to make clear I'm not saying Rudy is going to win the nomination, or even that it's probable at this point. But it is possible - as even Michael Barone agrees.

You'll want to read Rich Miller's column in the Sun-Times this morning. Miller takes on critics of the blogosphere (Rago, et al) and concludes:

This phenomenon is not going away, no matter how much it is dismissed or chastised. The Internet has been seized on as a democratizing tool by millions of perpetually democracy-hungry Americans. Bloggers should definitely be open to criticism by the mainstream media. That's America. But lumping everyone together with the crackpots is neither fair nor honest. And the fact that so many reporters and pundits can't seem to get the story right just proves the bloggers' point that too many of them don't know what they're talking about on everything else.

Abu Bakar Bashir, spiritual leader of the Indonesian terrorist group Jemaah Islamiah, has been cleared by the Indonesian Supreme Court of any involvement in the 2002 Bali bombing that killed 202 people.

Australians are rightly outraged over the verdict and, interestingly, the head of Labor Party is attacking Prime Minister John Howard and suggesting some of the blame lay at the feet of the U.S. Government:

Labor leader Kevin Rudd questioned why Indonesian authorities were not given access to Bali bombing mastermind Hambali as part of their investigations.

He said Hambali, now being held by the US in Guantanamo Bay, could have provided vital evidence to convict Bashir.

Mr Rudd asked what Mr Howard had done to have Hambali found accountable.

"What representation did Australians make to the Americans to enable the Indonesians to get access to Hambali and why were those representations rejected?"

UPDATE: Here's an interview with Bashir from September. Here are some snippets of what the cleric told Al-Jazeera (all emphasis added):

The Muslims understand that my goals are righteous, that I want to uphold sharia law. I'm not trying to convert them into Muslims, but I'm just trying to uphold sharia law for all human beings...

I'm just telling people what our prophet Mohammad said about Islam, you have to understand that these things are not coming from my thoughts. I'm delivering what Islam is according to Mohammad and his friends...

So there is no other way. If human beings want to have good things, then they have to return to Islam, because that's the concept from God. And what George Bush has been telling people, is the concepts of Jews and criminals and that will destroy human beings...

Please give my message to the leaders in the West, Tony Blair, George Bush tell them to stop fighting Islam. Islam will win, definitely. You can kill Muslims, but Islam cannot be killed. You will be destroyed if you fight Islam. Advise them to convert to Islam, so they will be saved. That's my message.

It occurs to me that the more naive among us might read Bashir's words and conclude that what he's saying is no different than what a Christian evangelical might say: "convert so you will be saved." But while Christians might threaten non-believers with the specter of judgement before God and a rather uncomfortable eternal afterlife, Bashir's threats are less spiritual than they are terrestrial: convert, live under sharia, or die.

Lest there be any confusion about that fact, remember that according to Australian intelligence authorities Bashir - the man who claims he is "delivering what Islam is according to Mohammad" - was "clearly was a key figure" in the bombings that led to the slaughter of more than 200 innocents four years ago.

More good news from Iran.

The Golden State's population growth rate has declined for the sixth consecutive year.

Once again, discussion of whether conservatives will vote for Giuliani over McCain generated a flood of email responses, mostly in Giuliani's favor:

I, along with an overwhelming majority of my friends plan on supporting Rudy in the primaries. I am a staunch conservative, and disagree with Rudy on several key issues (you hit the main ones in your blog yesterday). But the reasoning is two-fold:

1) Rudy solves problems, and is viewed in that light by many conservatives. We don't see a great deal of grandstanding or foaming at the mouth about "how bad these problems are" and "what we need to do", blah, blah, blah as we see with McCain and most other blowhard senators - regardless of party afiliation.

2) McCain, while professing to be conservative, caves on everything from taxes, to the judiciary, and wastes precious government time delving into less important issues, i.e. the sports-related investigations.

I'd rather admit my losses up front where the judiciary is concerned, and let Rudy solve a few problems. It is a much more desirable alternative than McCain's holier-than-thou bloviating, and backstabbing, where nothing gets done in the end.

--------------------------------

I consider myself a "religious right" person, and am nonetheless enthused about Rudy and antagonistic to McCain. Your analysis is pretty on key, I think. There's something about McCain that doesn't ring conservative (opportunisitic, maybe) And there's quite a difference between agreeing with McCain-Feingold post facto, and having your name on it. And nothing any national politician has done will ever top the refusal of the check from the Saudis. That shows who Rudy is, what he believes and what he'll put up with, and won't. There's no candidate for president on our side whose views match mine 100%, and I wish Rudy was more pro-life. But he'd be a great president, and on the right side of the aisle.

--------------------------------

As a "Jesse Helms Conservative" in South Carolina, I would vote for Rudy in a hearbeat if he could provide assurances that social issues were, for him, legislative rather than judicial issues, and would be appointing people to the court based on a philosophy of judicial restraint and sound, constitutional jurisprudence, that included commerce in the mix.

--------------------------------

I would like to add my 2 cents worth to why I am STRONGLY supporting Rudy over McCain, and I am a conservative. The reasons you state about his likeability factor are very true. But it is more than that. He has run a large city; he dealt with the bureaucracy, and all the various elements that make up NYC very successfully. To me that is why I think there hasn't been a president since JFK who didn't have more governmental and/or managerial experience than simply running a Senate staff. Beyond that, I lived in NYC during the 90s and what a difference that man made. I am much more interested in a man (or woman) with a vision and true leadership skills which I think Rudy showed us before and on 9/11. I only worry about his more liberal social issue views in that they might hurt him from getting the nomination. In spite of disagreeing with him on some of those issues, I believe he would be the best man to lead us during the next certain to be troubled four years after 2008.

--------------------------------

As a lower case "c" conservative I disagree with Giuliani on some issues, but can live with honest disagreements having tremendous respect for his character and judgment on other issues. Giuliani was an agressive prosecutor, and he ran NYC which is no small task. Giuliani in my mind has the sine qua non of any man or woman who seeks to take on an executive position such as the Presidency. He acts. Of Teddy Roosevelt it was said he was pure act; and Giuliani seems cut from the same cloth.

--------------------------------

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

YES, southern, Christian, conservatives will vote for Rudy. ANYBODY but McCain.

By the way, that last email was signed, "Grandmother from the rural South."

A couple of self-identified single issue national security voters pronounced both candidates acceptable, and a few said neither would get their vote.

Some also found it ironic that the man critics used to refer to as "Adolf Giuliani" and the "Mussolini of Manhattan" is now cloaked in the mantle of likeability:

Rudolph Giuliani's controlled pugnacity may seem refreshing now to heartland conservatives, but I predict that feeling won't last out a long campaign. Do you like arrogance, vendettas, barely concealed disdain for citizens and adversaries treated as enemies? You don't know him the way New Yorkers do -- but if he runs for President, you will. I voted for him twice for mayor, and I assure you there wasn't an ounce of affection in it. The city needed him. Can the same now be said for the country? As president he will be non-ideological and yet polarizing.

Then again, stories of McCain's temper are legion - and legendary. Here's one from a reader who says he is a former Hill staffer for one of the most conservative Members of Congress:

I staffed a couple of House-Senate conference committees and McCain is a nightmare. He was brusque with the other Members and in one meeting berated a staff person in front of everyone for a rather minor transgression. At one point I thought his head was going to explode he got so red in the face. It was apparent that the other members of the conference committee were uncomfortable with his behavior. He struck me as petty, self-righteous and tyrannical. When he has taken his "maverick" positions, they appear highly calculated to get maximum exposure for him in the media and designed to put a thumb in the eye of either the Senate leadership or the Bush Administration or both. The press, of course, eats it up when a Republican criticizes his own party. He is a fool to think the major media will continue its flirtation with him as soon as there is a real Democrat in the race against him. He is only useful to the press when he is bashing his own party.

Giuliani on the other hand has never, to my knowledge, spent much time attacking his fellow Republicans as easy as that would have been for him in deep blue NYC. Most of us are politically mature enough to know that there is virtually no candidate with whom we will agree on every issue and even where we may not see eye-to-eye with Giuliani, we don't feel insulted by him.....

Ultimately, most presidents have little real say about gay rights or gun control other than to sign or veto laws regarding the same after Congress hashes it all out. In the case of abortion, the political branches long ago ceded that issue to the courts. On gun control, abortion and gay rights, I suspect that Giuliani will be respectful to all comers on those issues; McCain has proven he won't. Giuliani has his baggage but so does McCain. On the whole, Giuliani has plenty of issues that the base can love and a raft of personal characteristics that would make him a fine candidate.

One late email from a liberal friend makes a worthwhile point:

key internal of one poll I saw last week--can't remember which one--was that 75% of those surveyed did not know Rudy's positions on social issues--again, don't remember whether that was Republican voters or entire electorate. That's obviously key threshold for him--at this stage, you just can't underestimate how LITTLE people know about most of these people. Look at Obama--for us, we feel like he's practically living in our homes, we're already sick of him!!! Yet even 45% of Dems don't have a clue about the guy (which does make his polling results pretty impressive, i.e. most people who do know about him have a very favorable impression, and his upside is much higher than, say, Hillary).

I tend to think that Republican activists (i.e. the kind of people who will vote in primaries) are fairly well informed about Giuliani even at this early stage and do have at least some level of understanding about his position on social issues. I may be wrong - and certainly issues surrounding Giuliani that might be perceived as being somewhat benign right now may look very, very different after sharp-shooters from rival campaigns get done framing them for conservative primary voters.

Here are the results of the latest Gallup poll on 2008, with last month's results in parentheses:

Republicans
McCain 28 (26)
Giuliani 28 (28)
Rice 12 (13)
Gingrich 8 (7)
Romney 4 (5)
No Opinion 7 (7)

Seven other candidates scored 2% or less.

Democrats

Clinton 33 (31)
Obama 20 (19)
Gore 12 (9)
Edwards 8 (10)
Kerry 6 (7)
No Opinion 5 (6)

Seven other candidates scored 3% or less.

Interestingly, despite the massive media publicity Barack Obama has received over the last month or so, nearly half the Democrats taking part in the survey (47%) responded "no opinion" when asked to provide a favorable/unfavorable rating. More specifically, 33% of Democrats said they have never heard of Obama, and another 14% said the name sounded familiar but they didn't know enough to form an opinion.

On the other side, 69% of Republicans had "no opinion" of Mitt Romney.

In overall favorability, Rudy topped all '08 hopefuls at 77%. More importantly, and circling back to my post the other day about Rudy vs. McCain and the "likeability" factor, Giuliani scored a 92% favorable rating among Republicans. McCain favorable rating with Republicans is 63%.

Hillary's favorables are also worth a mention. She does well among Democrats (86%), but significantly less well with Independents (48%) and she gets the lowest rating of any Democrat in registering a crossover favorable rating from self-described Republicans (13%). Even John "Botched Joke" Kerry gets a 16% favorable rating among Republicans in this poll, and Al Gore gets 19%.

This is yesterday's news - literally - but it's worth a comment. Here's how Washington Democratic Governor Christine Gregoire announced $4 billion worth of spending increases in the state budget over the next two years:

"These are good times, these are exciting times. Now is the time to make the investments in the future," Gregoire said. "If we fail to make the investments ... then the future can say, 'Shame on us.' We had the opportunity and passed it up."

It's hard to imagine a comment more illustrative of the difference between liberals and conservatives with regard to fiscal policy. Gregoire's attitude is that if there's any extra money laying around, it must be spent - I'm sorry, "invested" - by the government. Not returned to the people who own it. Not used to pay off debt. The ranking Republican on the Budget Committee said he couldn't find a single instance - not one - in which the governor reduced spending on any program in the entire state.

More from the Seattle Times story:

Gregoire's 2007-09 general-fund budget of nearly $30 billion would add nearly 3,800 new state jobs; spend about $1 billion on pay raises for teachers and state workers, $343 million for public schools and $110 million for health-care programs; and put millions more into state parks, higher education and early learning.

It also would burn through most of a projected $1.9 billion budget surplus and possibly set the state up for a shortfall of more than $600 million when lawmakers have to put together a new budget in 2009. [snip]

Gregoire brushed aside concerns about how much money she wants to spend. "I think the fact that we're headed to that size of the budget is simply an indication that we put people to work and the economy is booming," she said.

"I love my budget."

I bet. Gregoire's giddiness over engaging in a spending spree with taxpayer money should be a helpful reminder to the GOP about the importance of fiscal austerity - a concept that seems to have escaped quite a few members of the Republican party at the state and federal level in recent years.

If you're not from Chicago this headline from today's Sun-Times may not make sense until after you read the article:

Cubs woo Dave Matthews despite poo

The president said yesterday that he's asking new Defense Secretary Gates to tell him how many more troops should be sent to Iraq. Gates is in Iraq now, meeting with senior commanders and, presumably, going out in the field to see things for himself. In the wind is a three to six-month "surge" of troops to Iraq. A few key questions need to be asked before we send anyone more to Iraq.

First is what will they do when they get there? Some pundits think we're going to "take the gloves off", destroy the militias and somehow - by house to house fighting if no other way - rout the insurgents of all stripes to give the Iraqi government breathing room in which to accomplish their political compromises and sing a chorus or two of "Kumbaya." None of this is remotely possible.

First, if we are temporarily deploying more forces we are necessarily telling the insurgents to fade away, take their money, weapons and key people underground, and wait us out. They can evade us and wait us out. It's almost as bad as announcing a firm date for withdrawal of all Americans. We are in a very tough spot because some military leaders have said publicly - in Congressional hearings and elsewhere - that we lack the forces to support a sustained effort in Iraq much longer. The enemies watch those hearings more closely than Americans do.

Second, the Maliki government is so terribly weak, and so dependent on the support of thugs such as Moqtada al-Sadr, that it will not permit us to do what should be done to destroy the Shia militias and the Sunni insurgents. If we choose to operate regardless of Maliki's limitations, his government and the Iraqi constitution would be nullities. We'd be back where we were in 2003. Which may not be entirely a bad thing. If Maliki fell without taking the Iraqi constitution with him, a stronger coalition government has a chance to arise. Now, one does not.

Third, without a clear military mission for the increased forces, we may - by default - start ordering them to perform routine street patrols that had been patrolled recently by Iraqis. They will be little more than moving targets for snipers and IEDs. The success of such local patrols depends on time on the streets: the more you have, the more the people learn to trust you, not fear you, and the more success you have in learning who is the good guy and who isn't. Our soldiers aren't policemen. And to train them to be police, we untrain them for their primary combat role. They can't be both.

We can "send a message" by sending more troops temporarily. But it's not the message that we are determined to win this war. Mission and strategy are what troops are to perform. Not nation-building or sending diplomatic signals.

Michael Powell and Chris Cillizza's article on Rudy Giuliani in the Washington Post today doesn't cover much new ground. Mostly it just recycles the obvious question surrounding Rudy's potential '08 candidacy: will his liberal-leaning positions on social issues be a deal breaker with conservative primary voters and caucusgoers? The conventional wisdom has been and remains "yes," but there continues to be anecdotal evidence beyond polls suggesting the conventional wisdom may turn out to be wrong.

Last August I wrote two columns, one critical of McCain and one critical of Giuliani. The former column argued that while McCain is pitch-perfect with the base on certain key issues like spending and national security, he's utterly tone deaf on others like immigration and the First Amendment.

The latter column argued that even if you set aside the obvious baggage Giuliani carries on social issues and with respect to his personal life, the Mayor takes all the same positions as McCain on those key issues which McCain is constantly vilified by the conservative base. For example, Rudy is very much in favor of comprehensive immigration reform, and he publicly supported McCain-Feingold in 2000 when he was flirting with a Senate run against Hillary.

Rudy hasn't paid much of a price for those views so far - certainly not in the same way McCain has. The question is whether he will begin paying a price for them once the campaign gets seriously under way and voters start comparing the two candidates and asking: why would I vote for Rudy when he holds all the same views I don't like about McCain and he's also much more liberal on issues like abortion and gay marriage?

The answer to that question may turn out to be as simple as this: Rudy is just more likeable. Last August I asked conservatives to explain why they would be willing to vote for Giuliani over McCain, and among the flood of email responses I received Rudy's likeability and sense of party loyalty stood out as a key factor:

Despite the argument that it's McCain's turn because he's "paid his dues," many just don't see him as a loyal party man - for obvious reasons. But the problem is deeper than McCain's willingness to go against Republicans on key issues, there is a real sense of dislike toward McCain among some for his self-aggrandizing chumminess with the media. In other words, it's not just that McCain disagrees with Republicans on some issues but the way in which he does the disagreeing that irks them. Rudy doesn't seem to engender any of those same feelings - just the opposite, in fact.

Likeability with base voters is important, and intangible. McCain doesn't have it. Rudy does. Romney does too. This will help them to some degree in getting past a few respective hurdles to winning the nomination, but not all.

One thing Rudy and McCain both have right now that Romney doesn't is a sense of electability. It's early and that could certainly change over time, but Republicans will want to keep the White House and to the extent the race gets further along and Romney continues to trail in general election matchups against prospective Democratic opponents, it will begin to become an issue for him and a bigger advantage for Giuliani and McCain.

David Zucker takes on the Iraq Study Group:

Yesterday Georgia Republican State Rep. Len Walker offered a resolution to strip Cynthia McKinney's name off a highway in DeKalb County saying that Ms. McKinney's tenure in Congress was "marked by controversies and rhetoric that has brought embarrassment to the state of Georgia." Walker added, ""Where I come from, we don't name roads for people like Cynthia McKinney."

You may or may not find this idea silly. Fine. McKinney's behavior did cause a lot of attention, and it certainly caused sufficient embarrassment and/or disgust among voters in her district to toss her out of office in November. But she wasn't convicted of a crime or caught in some other egregious act (a la Mark Foley), which is the sort of disgrace that normally precedes something like this.

Regardless of what you think of Walker's resolution, listen to how McKinney's former campaign manager responded:

And as for Walker's claim that McKinney has caused embarrassment to Georgia, [John] Evans said: "He must be talking about white folks or uppity black folks."[emphasis added]

So if you're an African-American who thinks McKinney's behavior was embarrassing you're "uppity?" That's the sort of vicious slander some blacks use against members of their own community to keep them in line, whether that line is supporting someone like Cynthia McKinney or opposing other African-Americans like Michael Steele. It's an effective but truly shameful tactic.

Salena Zito of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review lands an exclusive interview with outgoing Republican Senator Rick Santorum. Here's a bit:

During the preceding months of his re-election bid, he never wavered in his support for Rumsfeld or the increasingly unpopular war in Iraq, even as both plummeted in public-opinion polls.

He chose to "run with my convictions rather than run away from them, even if they were unpopular and even though they may have cost me my seat," he said, "... because that is how important I believe that they were and still are."

He said he was unimpressed by the Iraq Study Group's report after reading a summary of its 79 recommendations, dismissing it as "not worth reading ... a bunch of contradictory suggestions, with no clear plan other than the fact that we have to get out, and that means to surrender."

He criticized news coverage of the war in Iraq, declaring: "I have always said that if World War II was covered like this war, I really, very seriously, doubt that we would have ever won that war. ... The bottom line is, the media -- and I am not saying that they are intending to do this -- but simply by what they are doing, without question, it is aiding the terrorists and their objective."

Read the whole thing.

The Arizona Republic has compiled a list of contributions to McCain, Giuliani, and Romney broken out by region and state.

Zachary Coile of the San Francisco Chronicle runs down a list of Speaker Pelosi's closest friends and confidants.

No real surprises on the shortlist of Congressional members (George Miller, Anna Eshoo, John Murtha, John Spratt, Rahm Emanuel, David Obey, Ike Skelton, and Charlie Rangel in the House. Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer, Dick Durbin, and Chuck Schumer in the Senate), but the list of ex-members of Congress is interesting:

Ex-members of Congress -- a.k.a. the lobbyists

Tom Downey: former Long Island lawmaker and now powerful Democratic lobbyist knows Pelosi well enough that his kids call her "Aunt Nancy."

Marty Russo: a former House member from Illinois was part of Pelosi's Tuesday night dinner club; he's now CEO of Cassidy & Associates, one of D.C.'s top firms for securing earmarks.

George Crawford: Pelosi's former chief of staff, now a lobbyist at King & Spalding; he's raised eyebrows for taking two new clients, ExxonMobil and pharmaceutical giant Amgen, who will face tough scrutiny under a Pelosi-run House.

So among the small group of friends and advisers the SF Chronicle says "will be whispering in her [Pelosi's] ear as she leads a new Democratic Congress" are the CEO of a top D.C. earmarking firm and a former Chief of Staff now lobbying for ExxonMobil and Amgen.

Don't worry, though, Pelosi's going to start "draining the swamp" in DC - right after she gets done with a "4-day fete" celebrating her election as speaker that will culminate on January 5 with a big concert. Tickets? For PACs, a cool $15,000 will get you two.

The head of the Mossad, Israel's intelligence service, says Iran will acquire a nuke "within three or four years if its nuclear weapons programme continues to develop at the current pace."

Assuming that's an accurate assessment, and also assuming we don't attack Iran to prevent them from acquiring a bomb before then, that means Iran would go nuclear right around the second year of the next President's first term. Question: does that sort of scary scenario alter the prospects of Barack Obama winning the nomination and/or the general election?

Quick hits on 2008:

Despite the recent brouhaha with FOX News over whether he's running or not, Bill Richardson is still testing the waters.

Clinton pollster Mark Penn looks (or spins, if you prefer) the results of the latest '08 poll and finds proof Hillary can win. Penn also made a mark about John McCain that elicited a smack back from John Weaver:

"There are very few people who want to send more troops right now. He certainly is going out on a limb suggesting that is the right thing to do right now," Penn said.

Asked about the comment, McCain aide John Weaver responded sharply, "It must be so alien for them - the Clinton advisers - to actually observe someone say and do what they believe to be right and good for the country without polling on it first."

Rudy Giuliani is set to address the California GOP at the state party convention in February. His first '08 fundraiser will take place tomorrow night in New York City.

Joe Biden told a crowd of 100 people in Southern New Hampshire that "we are tilting at windmills" in Iraq. Biden also said, ""I'm afraid the President, and others who support the troop surge, have it completely backwards."

Newt appeared on Meet the Press yesterday and said he's content to wait and see what happens:

MR. RUSSERT: You said you won't announce your presidential plans until September.

FMR. REP. GINGRICH: Right.

MR. RUSSERT: Isn't that too late? Won't the other candidates be so well financed, so well organized?

FMR. REP. GINGRICH: You are a great student of this business. When we were young, I think you were younger than me, but when we were young, John F. Kennedy announced on January 2nd, 1960, the year of the election. In 1975 and again in 1979, Ronald Reagan announced in November, OK? My view's this. If--and you--and you put up the numbers. Romney's had a good year. He's emerging as a serious player. Giuliani is wildly popular for national security reasons. John McCain has built a base for years of hard work. If one them seals it off by Labor Day, my announcing now wouldn't make any difference anyway. If none of the three having from now to Labor Day can seal it off, the first real vote is in 2008. And there's plenty of time in the age of television and e-mail between Labor Day and 2008.

Paul Bedard of US News & World Report writes that the Dems think Republican Mike Huckabee is well positioned as the GOP darkhorse.

John Fund thinks the current frenzy over Barack Obama looks a lot like Powell mania.

Michael Barone wonders about Obama's lack of experience.

Scott Shepard of the Washington Times takes note of the diversity of the '08 field.

Jackie Calmes of the Wall Street Journal looks at how the Dem field has shifted since Obama ratcheted up the noise about making a run. In addition to Evan Bayh's announcement, Calmes speculates more Dem longshots (like Kerry and Biden) may be dropping out soon.

Nedra Pickler of the Associated Press looks at the new role Nevada will play in the Dems' nominating process.

And Eli Lake of the New York Sun writes that Dems want to make sure we've started the process of getting out of Iraq before the 2008 political season gets into full swing.

Nancy Pelosi's spokesperson told the San Antonio Express-News that immigration is "absolutely a top priority" for the new Speaker of the House - even though it's not on her list of things to do when Democrats take control next month.

The conundrum for Pelosi, of course, is that while immigration reform legislation is an opportunity to divide Republicans, it also presents a risk to some members of the new majority. More from the article:

Though rarely ever nodding in unison, immigrant advocates and restrictionists concurred that the election proved Democrats had to move to the right in order to win.

But advocates remain optimistic that last year's gridlock won't be repeated and chances have improved for reform.

"Most disagreements are on the edges now, such as on working out acceptable numbers of visas and guest workers allowed," said Michelle Waslin, spokeswoman for the National Council of La Raza.

Opponents of illegal immigration lamented losing some big-name supporters of their cause in the election but remained hopeful that newly elected Democrats will keep their campaign promises to focus first or solely on enforcement.

A bit further down there's this:

Rep. Charlie González, D-San Antonio, said the incoming group of tough-sounding first-termers soon will learn the art of having to break campaign promises to keep their political careers alive.

According to National Journal's "Insider Poll," members of Congress estimate there's roughly a 60% chance immigration reform will pass next year (via Kevin Drum). As one Republican commented, "Bush will get what he wants, and congressional Republicans will get a great issue against vulnerable Democrats.”

Good news from Iran:

Iranians have dealt a blow to President Ahmadinejad's hardline Government, by thwarting his allies in municipal and clerical elections.

According to early results, Mr Ahmadinejad's fundamentalist mentor who espouses cultural isolation from the West, was trailing sixth in the Tehran vote for the Assembly of Experts, Iran's all-powerful clerical council. Reformists were also expected to seize a handful of seats on Tehran city council, signalling a comeback after three electoral defeats in the past three years.

Meanwhile, the Guardian reports that Iranian student activists who protested President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad recently have gone into hiding and are being hunted by "vigilantes from the militant Ansar-e Hezbollah group." Here is how one protester described the scene of Ahmadinejad's visit to the university:

"We were chanting, 'Get lost Ahmadinejad!' and 'Ahmadinejad - element of discrimination and corruption.' You could see from his face that he was really shocked. He wasn't flashing his usual smile, and at one stage I thought he was going to cry. He told his supporters to respond with a religious chant hailing Ahmadinejad, but he was so shaken he was actually chanting it himself."

Another student said: "He was trying to keep control of himself, but you could see he was angry and upset."

Charles Krauthammer on Rumsfeld's legacy from last night's roundtable on FOX's Special Report with Brit Hume:

The person who had the stature and experience to go after the entrenched bureaucracy of the military and to want to change it to be more light and adaptable, and that is a process that will be remembered as a very big positive.

Secondly, he's the man who gave us these amazingly swift victories to defeat and destroy enemy regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq with an economy and a swiftness nobody would ever have expected.

Remember also, we've gone five years without a terrorist attack. And all of this is his legacy. Of course, obviously, is the stalemate in Iraq, the decisions that were made early on, that were hard decisions, some of them in retrospect were not right. But Iraq is still in play and those who say his legacy is written on Iraq, I think are wrong. I think we're going to see how it turns out.

Maureen Dowd in today's New York Times.

James Baker ran after W. with a butterfly net for a while, but it is now clear that the inmates are still running the asylum.

The Defiant Ones came striding from the Pentagon yesterday, the troika of wayward warriors marching abreast in their dark suits and power ties. W., Rummy and Dick Cheney were so full of quick-draw confidence that they might have been sauntering down the main drag of Deadwood.

Far from being run out of town, the defense czar who rivals Robert McNamara for deadly incompetence..... the septuagenarian who arrogantly dismissed initial advice to send more troops to secure Iraq.

Just imagine the send-off a defense secretary would have gotten who hadn't sabotaged the Army, Iraq, global security, our chance to get Osama, our moral credibility, the deficit and American military confidence.

I suspect the history books 50 years from now will find Krauthammer closer to the truth.

We could probably fill an entire page every day just tracking media coverage of Barack Obama. Today's offerings include Peggy Noonan and Rosa Brooks, and also this lengthy report by Chicago Tribune political reporter Rick Pearson on his interview with Obama yesterday.

In the piece, Obama says that a potential match up against John McCain would be portrayed as "War hero against snot-nosed rookie." Obama also commented on his now widely noted real estate deal with the sleazy, indicted Tony Rezko:

Obama acknowledged "it was stupid" of him to get involved in the purchase almost one year ago of a strip of property adjoining his $1.65 million home from Antoin "Tony" Rezko, who owned a vacant lot next door. Rezko, a political insider and fundraiser, was indicted in October on charges of trying to extort campaign donations and kickbacks from firms seeking state business. Rezko has pleaded not guilty.

"I am the first one to acknowledge that it was a boneheaded move for me to purchase this 10-foot strip from Rezko, given that he was already under a cloud of concern," Obama said. "I will also acknowledge that from his perspective, he no doubt believed that by buying the piece of property next to me that he would, if not be doing me a favor, it would help strengthen our relationship."

On the same day that Obama and his wife closed on their home, Rezko's wife, Rita, closed on the $625,000 vacant lot next door. Both lots had been part of the same estate, but the owner listed them as separate parcels.

Obama said he has known Rezko for 20 years and "he had never asked me for anything. I've never done any favors for him."

"There was no sense of betrayal of the public trust here," Obama said.

That'll be for the voters to decide.

John Dickerson went over the details on the Obama-Rezko real estate deal and concluded that "there's nothing here so far that seems politically life threatening." Dickerson adds:

The Rezko business is also not likely to hurt him, because his principal rival will probably be Hillary Clinton, and she's not going to bring up the topic of questionable land deals.

That may be true so far as the primary goes, but not necessarily for the general election.

My column in the Chicago Sun-Times today: Abigail Adams describes George W. Bush.

Did Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm hide the details of state budget overruns until after the election?

A key hearing today in the Duke Lacrosse case:

The motion, filed in Durham County Superior Court, also asks the judge to throw out the photographic lineup procedure that was the basis for the state's case. And it followed a defense motion Wednesday that attacked the handling of DNA evidence.

If the motions succeed, the attorneys for three indicted former lacrosse players would undermine the foundation of District Attorney Mike Nifong's case. The motions attack the key weaknesses the defense has raised about Nifong's case -- a questionable lineup, the lack of physical evidence and whether the accuser is a reliable witness.

Yesterday we learned that DNA from "several males" was found "in the accuser's body and her underwear" - none of which matched any player from the Duke lacrosse team. Today the news is that the accuser is pregnant and "due to give birth any day."

Retired Colonel Ken Allard points out an overlooked news conference last Friday by Lt. Gen. Peter Chiarelli, who has been the commander of U.S. Forces in Iraq during the last 12 months:

But don't miss the significance of what Chiarelli was telling us after a year of commanding our forces in Iraq -- assuming weary American voters choose to notice at all. His bottom-line assessment: Our troops are fighting the good fight with heroism, innovative tactics and interservice teamwork. Even more startling: This is a fight we can still win, assuming the Pentagon isn't left to fight on its own.

Allard has been a frequent critic of the a