So Rosie O'Donnell says that the President's "vile and vicious and hateful" comments made her go get an invalid marriage certificate in San Francisco. Can someone please point out the vile, vicious, and hateful part of the President's statement?

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Eight years ago, Congress passed, and President Clinton signed, the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage for purposes of federal law as the legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.

The Act passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 342 to 67, and the Senate by a vote of 85 to 14. Those congressional votes and the passage of similar defensive marriage laws in 38 states express an overwhelming consensus in our country for protecting the institution of marriage.

In recent months, however, some activist judges and local officials have made an aggressive attempt to redefine marriage. In Massachusetts, four judges on the highest court have indicated they will order the issuance of marriage licenses to applicants of the same gender in May of this year. In San Francisco, city officials have issued thousands of marriage licenses to people of the same gender, contrary to the California family code. That code, which clearly defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman, was approved overwhelmingly by the voters of California. A county in New Mexico has also issued marriage licenses to applicants of the same gender. And unless action is taken, we can expect more arbitrary court decisions, more litigation, more defiance of the law by local officials, all of which adds to uncertainty.

After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence, and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization. Their actions have created confusion on an issue that requires clarity.

On a matter of such importance, the voice of the people must be heard. Activist courts have left the people with one recourse. If we are to prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever, our nation must enact a constitutional amendment to protect marriage in America. Decisive and democratic action is needed, because attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city could have serious consequences throughout the country.

The Constitution says that full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts and records and judicial proceedings of every other state. Those who want to change the meaning of marriage will claim that this provision requires all states and cities to recognize same-sex marriages performed anywhere in America. Congress attempted to address this problem in the Defense of Marriage Act, by declaring that no state must accept another state's definition of marriage. My administration will vigorously defend this act of Congress.

Yet there is no assurance that the Defense of Marriage Act will not, itself, be struck down by activist courts. In that event, every state would be forced to recognize any relationship that judges in Boston or officials in San Francisco choose to call a marriage. Furthermore, even if the Defense of Marriage Act is upheld, the law does not protect marriage within any state or city.

For all these reasons, the Defense of Marriage requires a constitutional amendment. An amendment to the Constitution is never to be undertaken lightly. The amendment process has addressed many serious matters of national concern. And the preservation of marriage rises to this level of national importance. The union of a man and woman is the most enduring human institution, honoring -- honored and encouraged in all cultures and by every religious faith. Ages of experience have taught humanity that the commitment of a husband and wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society.

Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society. Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all. Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife. The amendment should fully protect marriage, while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage.

America is a free society, which limits the role of government in the lives of our citizens. This commitment of freedom, however, does not require the redefinition of one of our most basic social institutions. Our government should respect every person, and protect the institution of marriage. There is no contradiction between these responsibilities. We should also conduct this difficult debate in a manner worthy of our country, without bitterness or anger.

In all that lies ahead, let us match strong convictions with kindness and goodwill and decency.

Everybody is noticing about the visa program into Saudi Arabia not allowing Jews. Too many places to link - basically my whole blogroll. But this is Big News to the world. When I was stationed in the Mediterranean (89-92), I had 2 official passports. One to visit Israel, one for everywhere else. Because essentially every Muslim country (I think Turkey and Egypt were exceptions) would not allow someone with an Israeli stamp in their passport to enter the country.

I always wonder what's going on when old news suddenly becomes big news. It really isn't that shocking that Muslim countries do that. I mean, you can be killed for practicing another religion in Saudi Arabia.

I read a letter to the editor in the Washington Post yesterday that seemed a little odd. Andrew Sullivan cited it today: "Dec. 12, 1912, Rep. Seaborn Roddenberry (R-Ga.) proposed this amendment to the Constitution...."

An elected Republican in Georgia in 1912? Hardly seems likely. I was right:

RODDENBERY, Seaborn Anderson, a Representative from Georgia; born near Bainbridge, Decatur County, Ga., January 12, 1870; moved to Thomas County in early childhood; attended the common schools and Mercer University, Macon, Ga., for three years; taught at South Georgia College one year; member of the State house of representatives in 1892 and 1893 and declined to be a candidate for reelection; studied law; was admitted to the bar in 1894 and commenced practice in Thomasville, Thomas County, Ga.; president of the board of education of Thomas County 1895-1898; appointed judge of the county court of Thomas County in 1897 and served four years; declined reappointment; mayor of Thomasville in 1903 and 1904; elected as a Democrat to the Sixty-first Congress to fill the vacancy caused by the death of James M. Griggs; reelected to the Sixty-second and Sixty-third Congresses and served from February 16, 1910, until his death in Thomasville, Ga., September 25, 1913; interment in Laurel Hill Cemetery.

Of course, no one checks this stuff, because of course the Republicans are always bad guys.

UPDATE: Sullivan makes the correction I sent him.

In history, has there ever been a more narcissistic, self-indulgent, decadent, ungrateful, short-sighted bunch of cretins to ever pass through a country? I understand how they came up with the idea that humans are a plague on this earth, because they are. Okay, I am overgeneralizing. Maybe!

What brings on this moment? Any discussion about Social Security. Alan Greenspan had something to say about it. Everyone says that Alan is for cutting benefits, but Mr. Greenspan, in his usual circumspect manner, was pointing out that the "program" has future problems.

Into the breach step the pundits. And any honesty about the program goes out the window, leaving me yelling at the TV. Therefore, I would like to use this little soapbox to put a couple points to any Boomers out there.

1) There is no TRUSTFUND! It's a pay as you go system. Yes, there are IOU's in the TRUSTFUND, but you spent the money. YOU! Not me.

2) Therefore, stating that there is some "PROMISE" inherent in the system is bullshit. What promise? I didn't make a promise. Did any of you Gen-Xers or later group? And I surely would not have made a promise that approximately like this: I (meaning anyone, but a boomer) promise to keep up a system that has an inbuilt demographic timebomb, wherein you (the boomers) will spend the money that is meant for retirement on other stuff (Who knows what? You just shovel it down the federal moneypit), and expect us (anyone, but a boomer again) to cover our double dipping.

3) Oh, they will also throw in moral decadence and decay. After the boomers are gone, later generations will spend the next century, trying to repair the damage done to society in the name of "good" intentions.

Honestly, I think we should just wait until these reprobates become a political minority and cut them off at the knees (Of course, the boomers will put off solving the problem until it is way to late, since this is their MO). Teach them consequences. Bastards!

And for those that think I am being harsh, think about what these short-sighted, self-centered, buckets of entitlement are doing to us? It should piss you off.

A George Will column about the rise of anti-Semitism on the Left. Almost all of his examples are from Europe. Puts me in mind of a short bit from I think I read in National Lampoon that went something like this: With the reunification of East and West Germany, the sign over the gates of Auschwitz have been changed from "Never again" to "Not for a very, very long time."

One where I pick up the Washington Post and wonder what world I live in. This time, a movie review (the Post requires registration) of The Passion. I haven't seen the movie yet, I expect that I will. But the review confuses me. Especially this part in the second paragraph:

"The Passion of the Christ," a harrowing condensation of Jesus's final 12 hours, engages in some troubling assumptions, for starters by treating the Bible's four Gospels as literal eyewitness accounts of Jesus's arrest, torture and crucifixion.

That's troubling? Weirder still is the VERY LARGE headline for the article, which is: "Less Than The Gospel Truth." So which is it? Relying on the Gospel as truth, troublingly, or not?

I haven't said anything about the gay marriage business until now. But, for a long time - some number of years - I have actually been for allowing gays to marry. Because I think that civil unions, as marriage by everything but name, are worse on the whole sanctity of marriage issue. I don't see the point in establishing a different name for something that is exactly the same.

I think that society should have taken the initiative and taken on gays rather than the other way around. Establish a marriage as two people, with all its legal incidents, and that is that. Civil unions are inherently discriminatory if they are only available to people who are of the same sex - a set of circumstances allowing the benefits of marriage to the unmarried - but only to those of the same sex.

There would obviously be a lot of fallout from such a decision - for example, the military prohibition on gays would have to fall by the wayside - and I don't have all the answers to how we should deal with all of that.

And for that same reason, this is an issue that should be arrived at legislatively, not by judicial fiat. Marriage is a legitimate concern of government, as we have many principles and laws built up around the institution that don't always extend to the unmarried, and it has nothing to do with religion, far-right or otherwise. Government doesn't care what church you get married in, or even if you got married in a church. In some states, it doesn't even care if you actually got married at all - "common-law" marriage.

By not taking this issue on legislatively earlier, we are now faced with the current situation. The courts are trying to impose it by fiat. And renegade mayors are issuing marriage licenses - though I think the correct answer to that is just not recognize them as valid. There was an article in the Post the other day about two gay men from Maryland who went to San Francisco, got 6 copies of a marriage certificate, and came home to present them in court. Of course, that certificate is not valid in California, so I don't see how it can be the basis for something in Maryland. But I am sure that it will get somewhere rather than rejected out of hand as it should be.

I think that trying to keep the courts from interpreting the law one way by writing explicit interpretations is bound to fail. The clear words of the Constitution as it was written are twisted all of the time - I am sure a clever enough, or pig-headed enough, judge, can make whatever judgement he or she wants, regardless of what a new amendment might say. I think that the right way to deal with it is to propose an amendment explicitly defining boundaries for the courts - what they can and cannot rule on. That is the way to rein in activist judges.

Pittspilot is right that this subject takes our eye off the ball. We have a war to win against people who would stone gays to death, and we are fighting over hospital visitation rights. Not that we must abandon all issues in the face of fighting this war, just that we don't need to have a cultural war raging at home at the same time.

I say let's have gay marriages, but on current marriage terms. Draw the lines, and put the ramparts up against those busy trying to renegotiate terms like "family" and "marriage" altogether. The ones who want to make all marriage more like an open homosexual one, rather than the other way around. I suspect that a lot less gays will choose to marry than say they want to.

Bush is backing a Constitutional Amendment to make marriage between a man and a woman only.

The blogosphere is acting like this is a bad thing.

Roger Simon thinks this is a bad idea and so apparently does Glenn Reynolds. Of course, so is Andrew Sullivan.

I, however, think this may be a good thing, for reasons that you may not expect, and with one giant caveat.

First, the caveat. We should not be talking about this subject now, and I will be extremely upset if the media turns this subject into THE Presidential campaign. The War on Terror is the number one priority, and I remain amazed at how we have drifted away from that topic.

Now, on to why this is a good thing. Bush has said that he wants a Constitutional Amendment. I am not in favor of the Amendment, but I think that his stating that he wants the process is a good thing. By stating that this will now be a Constitutional Amendment argument, it ensures that the courts will not have the last say. Instead, with the Constitutional Amendment device, we can have a long and protracted discussion of this complex and very difficult question, and possibly come to to some sort of consensus about the difficult questions involved in this topic.

Furthermore, it will ensure that the question is not resolved along purely legalistic lines. Thus, the legislative process can hash out the complex questions.

You see, I am one of those people who is deeply troubled by this question. On the one hand, I understand the problems of treating a segment of society as second-class citizens. This argument has merit. However, it does not simply trump a great number of very real concerns that I have. The value of the marriage institution is not something to be trifled with lightly, and I have yet to run across a systematic examination of the possible effects of this idea. Additionally, there is a slippery slope argument in there that is very valid.

It is high time that we have a discussion about marriage in our society. The institution is in sorry shape, and a discussion about it may do some good. Thus, this may be a golden opportunity.

What is interesting is that people like Andrew Sullivan seem not to want to engage in this discussion, but instead are fearful of this Constitutional Amendment. To which, I say, if you feel your arguments are sound, lets hear them. You are going to have a nationwide forum. And if your arguments are sound, then you will find the nationwide mainstream acceptance that you seek.

The Marines have adopted a business casual wardrobe to help keep people in!

U.S. Marines arrived Monday to guard the Embassy in Port-au-Prince. (AFP)

From July 15, 2003:

I have this great idea for a TV show. Five fraternity brothers go to SOHO, and help a gay man out by giving his loft a real lived in look, teach him how to drink beer out of longnecks, get him the football package for the Dish, and throw out all of his eyeliner. That would be great TV!

I was even a month ahead of Scrappleface! (Bet he gets the links, though.) And now it is on Comedy Central.

Anyway, who would have guessed that the TV critic at the Washington Post would pan this show, because, you know, its all about stereotypes that we know are all untrue? (The Post wants you to register.)

First, the UK Sunday Telegraph says "Osama bin Laden has been found and is surrounded by US special forces," and then I pick up the Sunday Washington Post and see the top headline says "A Secret Hunt Unravels in Afghanistan - Mission to Capture or Kill al Qaeda Leader Frustrated by Near Misses, Political Disputes." Dang that misguided Bush foreign policy etc. and so on! Of course, it takes more than the first glance to see that above that headline reads: "Ghost Wars : The CIA and Osama bin Laden, 1997-1999."

If you click the link to it, you'll probably get that evil registration thing. It is free, however.

This seems to be the sort of thing that should remain secret...

The book reveals how one such unit, the secret Grey Fox, could turn on cell phones without the enemy knowing it, allowing the CIA Predator to use the phone signal for a missile strike.

So why am I posting it? Like the bazillion people who just saw it on Drudge aren't telling anyone?

Lileks has it. Nobody comment that trickle down is for dummies. Just go read it.

Noone has any problem understanding that if something negative happens, it will have ripple effects. Listen to people bemoaning the closing of a military base. They recognize it. So why is it so hard the other way?

Andrew Sullivan seems to have been wrong about the whole National Guard thing venting all - or much of - the Bush hatred out of the system. It seems to have made the Democrats that much more angry because it failed. They are angry that President Bush went to the Daytona 500. Not at anything he said or did, but because he appeared there, and no doubt because the people there gave him an overwhelmingly positive welcome.

I guess that what they mean about "Remembering Florida."

The jobs situation is getting better, in the DC area, at least. Had lunch with some friends the other day, and the real signs that things are getting better are here. Numbers only mean so much - unsolicited phone calls at your desk from recruiters are a real world signal. One person I spoke with is a recruiter, and he said business was picking up for him.

Saw Rep. Charles Rangel on Fox News Sunday this morning, and he was going on and on about President Bush and the National Guard. I have long thought him a partisan hack, but his hackery today was simply stunning. One of my favorite parts was when he said "everyone knew who George Bush was" -referring to the current President's father. I wonder, is that so? In 1972 and 1973, George H. W. Bush was the Ambassador to the United Nations. Quick, name the current UN Ambassador - no fair looking it up!

I picked up the telegraphy on that a little earlier. I may have to change my email address to axisofevil@covad.net.

So I am reading an article on NRO by Jack Dunphy, the pen name of an LAPD cop, and it turns out that it is about Kevin Cooper, the California death penalty case that pittspilot brought to our attention a few days back. Cool - we're ahead of NRO on this score. But as I read it, I come across this paragraph:

Cooper's defense team is today led by Lanny Davis, best remembered as the shameless mouthpiece for an even more shameless former president. "We got ‘em!" exclaimed Davis when the Supreme Court refused to vacate the stay of execution. "The Supreme Court of the United States tonight ratified the fundamental concept of the American justice system, which is the truth must come out before we kill a man." Mr. Davis's commitment to the truth has not visibly advanced, it seems, since the days he spent shilling for Bill Clinton.

It doesn't get any better than this!

I will give Andrew this - he has been completely and totally intellectually consistent on the idea that Democrats' private affairs should not be in the news - Clinton, that guy who everyone who has forgotten now that was dating Chandra Levy when she was killed, and now Kerry.

But now he is saying that the story must not be true because Kerry denied it! He couldn't possibly be so stupid to deny it!

Of course, Clinton wasn't stupid, either. His denials of infidelity as a candidate in 1992 led to his election, and his denials in 1998 led to his continuing Presidency in spite of impeachment.

Plus, look at his "denial": "There is nothing to report, nothing to talk about, there's nothing there, there's no story." That seems a bit, well, Clintonian. Remember his denials of Gennifer Flowers' story? He never said that he didn't have an affair with Flowers, he said that her story was untrue - which he could say was technically accurate if any part of her story was not true.

Like I said, character in the executive is important.

I agree with pittspilot, below, mostly, on the issue of character. I think that character in the executive is one of the most important things in our government. I wouldn't go so far as to say, though, that someone unfaithful in his marriage will also be unfaithful to his duties, though it certainly shouldn't be any reason to believe that a person is more deserving of public trust.

I was talking to a friend at dinner the other night about Kerry before this came up, and I said that one problem with Kerry is that he is a ladies' man - sweet-talked a couple of heiresses into marrying him, and while single, he has a string of celebs that he has dated. I think that a truly successful ladies' man - with success measured in attracting multiple women, not one for life - is a talent for telling women whatever it is that they want to hear at that particular time to close the deal. I suppose one might call it "slipperiness." Kerry certainly embodies that as a politician, seeming to agree with all sides of any issue at one point or another. He shares that "talent" with President Clinton, another renowned ladies' man. He might be even better at it - Clinton didn't marry into hundreds of millions of dollars.

At any rate, it is that character trait that is troublesome to me, and while it doesn't prove that there is something to the story, it certainly doesn't make one trust him more, does it?

In the comments of the Intern thread, none other than Hesiod showed up and posted this:

You do know that Lanny Davis has been defending President Bush all over the place. Right?

ROTFLMAO!!!

Jinkies! Did I just get hoisted by my own petard?

Well, no, not exactly. The link in Hesiod's comment goes to a piece that appeared in the New York Daily News almost 4 years ago., Davis writes that he knew Bush at Yale, and that essentially all the people planning to run on "Bush is stupid" or "Bush is a meanie" are planning to fail. He was right.

It is questionable whether this is even defending George Bush - certainly it isn't defending President Bush because Davis makes it plain he doesn't want a President Bush. One column, prior to the election, saying Bush isn't stupid or mean equates to "defending President Bush all over the place."

So I sent Hesiod an email telling him simply that he was as disingenuous in commenting as he is on his blog. Now I'm ROTFLMAO!!!!!!

Once again, with the Kerry intern situation, we hear the various calls that there is a difference between "private" lives and "public" lives, and the mantra that Americans are uptight about "sex" and that we need to "loosen" up, and that what happen between two consenting people is none of our business. Basically the same crap that we heard throughout the Clinton debate.

Let me put this down for the record.

First my assumptions.

1) The oath to be faithful to one's spouse is one of the most solemn that any individual can make. That oath is at the very core of any "normal" relationship. Sexual relations complicate things, and can create problems for all involved which is why it is better that sexual relations remain within a committed relationship like marriage.

2) Violating that oath, and exposing that relationship to the corrosive effects of infidelity indicate either weakness on the part of the cheater, or a disregard for the Oath and the other party.

3) All people are weak to one degree or another. It is part of the human condition. That a person has a weak moment is not a disqualification from respect, especially if that person has a weak moment when relatively young. In fact, a leading indicator of character is the manner in which a person deals with slipping on a weak spot.

4) One of the most profound weaknesses in the human pysche is sexual desire. By weakness, I refer to the propensity of the sexual urge to be easily turned in unhealthly directions. Thus the urge can be healthy, or it can be unhealthy.

5) If the person violates the Oath of Faithfullness under the pretext of not caring about the oath, then that person's character is flawed. If someone could care less about the most solemn oath they have made then there can never be trust, in friendship, in work relationships, or in commercial relationships.

6) All relationships have trust at the core foundation. Whether this relationship is commercial, legal, political, or social.

From my assumptions I derive the following.

1) How someone treats their spouse matters. A spouse is supposed to be the most important person in that person's life. If that person treats their spouse badly, how will they treat the rest of society?

2) There is a private and a personal life, but to state that they are distinctly separate is absurd. If a person is unable to respect or maintain the trust of the people who are supposed to be the closest to him, then why would they give a flying crap about me?

3) Much of social fellowship is the ability to clamp down on anti-social urges. People are pre-disposed to be selfish, antagonistic, dishonest and rude. It takes work to think of others, and be polite. If you don't believe this, then you have not been required to teach these behaviors to children. With this in mind, the inability to control the basic sexual urge indicates to me that this persons ability to control his anti-social urges are suspect.

4) Thus, the private matters. And while no human is perfect, I expect a specific level of behavior. Cavorting with interns does not rise to that level, whether one is the President, a Senator, a Congressperson, a CEO, a teacher, or just a basic human being.

Why is that hard?

Apparently I am weird for believing this, but regardless I will stick with this framework.

Another soldier busted on espionage, this time a National Guardsman:

Spc. Ryan G. Anderson was being held pending charges of "aiding the enemy by wrongfully attempting to communicate and give intelligence to the al-Qaida terrorist network," said Lt. Col Stephen Barger, public information officer at Fort Lewis.

U.S. officials told NBC News that Anderson was caught up in a sting operation conducted jointly by the Army, the Justice Department and the FBI. Anderson, however, is being held only by the Army, which would bring the charges under consideration. Anderson is a Muslim, officials said.

What is going on with Muslims in the Great Northwest? The Beltway sniper, Mike Hawash and the Portland 6? Now this guy?

In the midst of an avalanche, Sitemeter still shows people searching for Janet Jackson at the Superbowl. Jeez, get over it!

When they make fun of you and all you can do is laugh!

Yeah, even funnier than you, Frank!

I first heard this on Rush when I got into the car to go to lunch today. My intent was to blog just this on the topic, at least until there is more to the story:

Live by the sword, die by the sword.

I was going to leave it right there, but then on the way home on the radio, I was listening to the Chris Core show, which is a local show, and Core is not Rush. At any rate, he had Lanny Davis (another local guy who you may remember as a constant TV presence during the Lewinsky days) on, and Davis said, and I'll try to quote as accurately as possible: "I want to make sure that you know that there is no story here. Nothing, no facts at all. Just something on Matt Drudge's website, and I think everyone knows that he is the least likely person to believe on a story like this."

I was flabbergasted. That was a balder lie than he had ever told in Clinton's employ. Drudge, least likely person to believe on a story like this?

Core, to his credit, responded that "Drudge broke the Lewinsky story, right?", to which Davis replied, "Yes, but there were no facts blah blah blah. He may have been right on that story, but that doesn't mean he is right about this one."

Wow. If you ask me, the least likely person to believe on a story like this would be Lanny Davis. He lied consistently on President Clinton's behalf. I suppose just because Davis was wrong on that one, it doesn't mean he is wrong on this one.

Davis tipped the scale for me - if Davis is telling your story, you have something to hide. No, I don't think that Davis was doing it on behalf of Kerry, but that doesn't matter.

Stranger still, the "regular Joe" caller who was on before was making a case that this was "old news," and had been previously investigated and laid to rest in 1998. So there must of been some sort of story there, even if the story is that the story isn't true (which was not the case Davis was making - he didn't say it wasn't true, he was saying Drudge was untrustworthy and there is no actual story).

Besides, as Instapundit (as always) points out, the blogosphere was on this a week ago.

Now I am sure there are people out there who would read this and say, well, isn't this the same thing as the Bush AWOL thing, except on pettier grounds, right? Well, no. Look at how the President has responded. Not by trying to smear his accusers, not by saying that it is old news, and not by saying there isn't a story. The President himself has answered that the accusations are simply untrue. He has provided documentary evidence that it is untrue. That is a much different approach than smearing one's accusers.

Apropos of my analysis of the Bush cycle, this represents a turn. I don't think that the Republicans are behind this, like Andrew Sullivan seems to. (BTW, doesn't that kind of baseless chargemaking look an awful lot like what Andrew is arguing against? My new fearless prediction - Andrew is going to flip on Bush before the election. Especially if Edwards is the beneficiary of newfound "electability" votes.)

UPDATE: Jonah Goldberg notes that Watchblog, linked in the Instapundit piece linked above, is run by someone who works for Clark.

posted by blaster at 07:47 PM | Comments (17)

Second Vehicle Bomb Kills Dozens in Baghdad . I thought it was supposed to the US conducting a war on Islam.

A while back I predicted that Clark would not announce as a candidate for President. Well, obviously that was wrong, and I owned up to it. But if I wanted to play revisionist historian, I could claim that what I predicted was that he would not run for President. He was a candidate, but whatever he did, it wasn't running. And now he is out. By the way at this point in time, that article reads "Retired Gen. Wesley Clark, who finished third in both Tennessee and Virginia, will announce his withdrawl on Wednesday in his hometown of Little Rock, Arkansas. " That would be even funnier it were Edwards!

In the top nav bar, I notice that the "Goldberg File" is no longer a top navbar item, and there is now one for "FRUM."

So, wow, Republicans are getting skittish on Bush, Rush launching on him, the full meal deal. Right on schedule. But, it also looks like the rest of the schedule is going right on plan, as they say. First, you have good news. Like the terrorists in Iraq know that we are winning and that democracy in Iraq is coming and that means that they are doomed. And that's in the New York Times! Andrew Sullivan says that maybe Bush hatred has peaked, but that makes him nervous, too. But I picked up the USA Today this morning and the front page says everything you need to know. I haven't figured out how to permanently link to the front page on the website so the best I can do are some pics from my Sidekick camera.

So what do I mean this is all you need to know? Well, this is "The Nation's Newspaper," and all of the front page articles are positive toward Bush in some way. The first article is about fallout from the Superbowl thing - it may creep out the more libertarian portion of the blogosphere, but this is red meat for the red states. It means that the great big Disney/Miramax/ABC conglomerate is not immune to what America really thinks, and that social conservatives have achieved in some small way a victory. Sure, the article provides an obligatory "chilling effect" quote, but not until the end. The headline is a Bush win, even if he ducked an opinion on it. The second article has a subhead of "Upbeat forecast is politically risky," but, that too is a good thing - Bush is not playing it safe here. Go big or go home. The third article is about an Iraqi police chiefin Fallujah - subhead, "Unsung heroes take extraordinary risks for their country's future." Message - we are winning, and we are not imposing our way of life on the Iraqis - they are fighting it for it themselves. And finally, the Burt Rutan article. While it has nothing to do with President Bush himself, and he plays no part, it shows that Americans are optimistic and achievers. And I think that the success of private space flight will accrue to President Bush because he has proposed an expansive vision of our future in space. Despite the fact that there were tons of cartoons ridiculing that, and even Jonah Goldberg, conservative geek said on CNN that we shouldn't be thinking about Mars while we are still fighting Al Qaida, the truth is, the American people are excited about space. I can't find it on his site, but I think it was Instapundit who had a piece on how many hits the NASA website got with the landing of the Mars rover, and how it was significantly larger than the hit count of all the Democrat presidential candidates combined.

So the cycle is cycling. I expect a few more of these before we are all done.

I agree with Michael Graham at NRO, and wish he had said this:

Since the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993, America has been the front line of the fight against terror. The USS Cole, our army barracks abroad, New York and Washington, DC--our enemies were bring the fight to us.

After the attack on 9/11, I decided we were going to take the fight to the terrorists. Now the terrorists are dying in Afghanistan and Iraq, while our citizens go to work and school in safety. If the Democrats want to go back to the 1990s, where we're fighting the terrorists on our own airplanes in the skies over America, they'll have to get past me first."

We didn't see it on Russert, but maybe we'll see something like it later on...

Among the things that some people are saying about the current fall of President Bush in