A senior Democrat admits that the party is invested in defeat:

Clyburn is the Majority Whip

Maybe I should try this .sig on Usenet:

Liberals used to be the ones who argued that sending U.S. troops abroad was a small price to pay to stop genocide; now they argue that genocide is a small price to pay to bring U.S. troops home.

Our deer management policies are insane, due to animal rights loonsactivists. And is Bob Byrd suffering from Lyme disease? Eric Scheie explains.

When I consider the current prices of beef, it seems a shame to let all that venison go to waste.

Fred Thompson has a long essay. I like it. I hope that he can force a debate on actual constitutional principles (something that most Republicans seem quite out to sea on these days).

Can anyone explain to me why I (or anyone) should give a plug nickel about what Mikhail Gorbachev thinks? About anything?

Well, not really. Despite the idiocy and ineffectiveness of the current airline security procedures, I don’t worry about hijackers any more, because I simply don’t believe that the passengers will let it happen again. But instead of allowing qualified people to arm and protect themselves and their fellow passengers, the TSA puts up a politically and bureaucratically correct show.

What I do worry about is bombs, particularly in checked luggage. Airline security is just one more area in which I both believe that the Bush administration has been a disaster, and that the Democrats would be even worse, since they are unwilling to even discourage terrorists from suing vigilant citizens who rat on them.

Some thoughts on Chief Minniehawhaw, and the potential implications for cleaning up the ongoing fraud and abuse of the left in academia.

Churchill’s firing doesn’t spell the beginning of the end for professors who abuse their positions, but it was a good day in Denver.

Unfortunately, I suspect that he will be paraded by the so-called progressives as a martyr for freedom of speech, and many will foolishly continue to buy it.

The Pirate Ballerina also has a roundup of links about Chief Lies-a-Lot, with a picture of a drum-beating ceremony.

This is interesting:

The fact that our state’s code is thoroughly woven with references to two specific political parties is evidence that the parties themselves act like a single, two-pronged special interest group, one that is more powerful than any labor union or trade association could hope to be. And furthermore, when one party is able to establish dominance for a period quite a bit longer than a lifespan, the probability factor for un-democratic malfeasance nears 1 (as in 100%).

I’d like to see some sort of constitutional amendment that would open things up to more parties. Of course, the chance of such a thing passing is epsilon squared, given the current power structure.

On the other hand, I wonder if we need one? It might be worthwhile to set up a foundation to look for laws like this, and challenge them in the courts on the grounds that the Constitution is silent on the very notion of political parties? It seems like, at a minimum, that you could strike down laws describing “two” or any specific number.

[Via Instapundit]

Bill Richardson might be good on space policy, but I sure don’t want him responsible for our national security:

ROBERTS: but there’s no indication that they want to get together and no indication that the international participants want to get involved, as well.

GOV. RICHARDSON: no, but you use the leverage of our withdrawal and you engage diplomacy to almost force them to get in there. get iran and syria in there. my point is all these other candidates are still talking about, even though we’ve had 160,000 troops, they’re still ready to leave 50,000 troops behind. i don’t. i move them out, deploy them around the region for contingencies, into afghanistan, so there is a difference in our approach, and i believe i got that out in the debate last night and some of your poll tested video groups have been good.

As Kathryn points out, way to go. Hand the place over to the terrorist-supporting enemy regimes that have been destabilizing it.

As Glenn notes, National Socialism was socialism, unhappy though leftists might be when it’s pointed out.