Everyone else has been linking to this piece, but (contrarian that I am) I’ve been bucking the trend. But after actually reading it, I could understand why they have, so I am as well.

Jimmy Carter, of all people, calls Dick Cheney a “disaster.” I suspect that the vice president will have too much class to respond, but the response would surely be entertaining.

I’ve long believed that once she became the nominee (as seems increasingly likely), Hillary!™’s past would come back to haunt her. One of the means by which this would happen would be the “Slick Grope Vets For Truth.” Well, it looks like Kathleen Willey has fired the first salvo. And interestingly, I hadn’t read about this in the news:

…as evidence that the Clintons haven t changed, the terror and harassment continue. Over 2007’s Labor Day weekend, Kathleen’s home was burglarized. Instead of taking jewelry or computers, the thief took the manuscript for Target, with its explosive revelations that could damage Sen. Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

Sounds par for the course to me. Hopefully (and apparently) it wasn’t the only copy.

From John Hood, on free trade.

Is anybody else troubled that someone can give a sitting Justice of the Supreme Court $1.5 million for a book deal, but I can’t give him a $100 gift?

Here’s a spot where FEC monitoring of money flows would be useful. I want to hear what the Justices have to say, so banning book deals seems wrong. But this appears to be an easy way for a single entity to influence a Justice’s decisions. I think everyone should have a chance to give Thomas money to influence his decisions just like we do by donating to elected officials’ campaigns.

I wonder how Thomas will dispel the appearance of impropriety. If he waits until 2009, he may get impeached.

—Update 2:30 PM CDT—

My commenters seem to think there is no appearance of impropriety. So I guess if you want to buy influence with a non-elected official, offer them a $1.5 million book deal.