Look at the top two news items being highlighted at the top of his Solutions America Web site:

Giuliani and History

June 27, 2006 - With Rudy Giuliani crisscrossing the country in support of Republican candidates and raising money for his new political action committee, it is beginning to look inevitable that he will seek the presidency in 2008. Despite his lead in many early polls, skeptics still dismiss his chances of winning... More

Giuliani Leads New York Presidential Pack, Quinnipiac University New York State Poll Finds; Bloomberg Tops Pataki As Presidential Pick

June 23, 2006 - Former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani leads Sen. Hillary Clinton when New York State voters rate native - or not so native - sons and daughter as possible Presidents, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today. Mayor Michael Bloomberg leads Go... More

Nope. No way. No how. This guy's not running for anything.

Posted by Ryan Sager at 11:00 PM | Email Author | Permalink

Immediately following the release of the Fed's statement yesterday, which took a much more dovish stance against inflation than a few weeks ago, gold prices surged and the dollar plummeted. Like a canary in a coal mine, these market movements indicate that a "pause" by the Fed in its rate hiking campaign would be an inflationary mistake.

Before advanced technologies, coal miners used caged canaries as a signal for the build-up of dangerous gases. If the bird died or had problems breathing, the miners knew there was a problem.

For inflation, the canaries are commodity prices and the value of the dollar. The sensitivity of these markets to detect monetary policy ease or restrictiveness has become very clear in the past decades. If the Fed prints too much money, commodity prices rise and the dollar falls. When the Fed is too tight, the opposite happens.

The price of gold fell from roughly $400/oz. in 1996 to less that $260 in 1999. Other commodity prices also fell, while the dollar surged to its highest level in decades. Despite these early warnings from gold and the dollar, the Fed was still blindsided by a brush with deflation in the early 2000s. It did not pay attention to the canary; and this was a huge mistake.

Since 2001, with the Fed fighting deflation, gold and other commodity prices have been on the rise and the dollar has been falling. These are early signs of an overly accommodative monetary policy, and it should not be surprising to see "core" measures of inflation beginning to rise. Nonetheless, many on the Fed and a large contingent of private sector and academic economists downplay the signals sent by these markets.

One typical argument is that commodity prices play only a small role in the US economy, especially as services grow relative to manufacturing. But this argument misses the point. It is not the feed-through of rising commodity prices (even oil) that causes inflation. Rather, it is easy money that causes inflation, and the sensitivity of these markets to dollar liquidity means that they provide the earliest warning sign of a Fed mistake. Commodities and currencies are traded every moment of every trading day and their prices are finely calibrated with the supply of dollars in the system.

(Brian Wesbury is the Chief Economist for First Trust Advisors in Chicago, IL)

Posted by Brian Wesbury at 03:57 PM | Email Author | Permalink

In honor of Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi's visit to Graceland with President Bush today -- in which the prime minister took the opportunity to sing some Elvis tunes -- here's some archival footage of Koizumi on CNN.

It seems this guy just can't control himself.

For some footage from today's press conference, try CBS or CNN (warning, though: it loads slowly).

Posted by Ryan Sager at 03:04 PM | Email Author | Permalink

In further Rudy news (no, I'm not on the payroll -- yes, I am a Rudy supporter), Rudy buddy Bernard Kerik finds his name next to two words today that make presidential candidates nervous: "plead guilty."

To wit:

Former Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik plead guilty Friday to accepting thousands of dollars in illegal gifts while he was head of the city's Correction Department.

As part of a plea deal, Kerik will stay out of jail but he'll pay $221,000 in fines.

In court Friday, Kerik admitted accepting $165,000 in renovations to his Bronx apartment from a construction company seeking to do business with the city. He also admitted that he failed to report a loan as required by city law.

...

In a statement released Friday, former Mayor Rudy Giuliani said, "Bernard Kerik has acknowledged his violations but this should be evaluated in light of his service to the United States of America and the City of New York."

I tend to think this will have minimal impact on Rudy's chances in '08. But how much of this stuff is there lurking in the shadows from his time as mayor? Cronies with shady histories, low-level corruption in the city government, etc. I mean, this is New York City. Not exactly a Disney ride, despite what you hear about the new Times Square.

It's something to watch.

Posted by Ryan Sager at 02:25 PM | Email Author | Permalink

I've had a bee in my bonnet about this for a little while, so I figure I'll get it out, since American Research Group has released yet another poll making it appear as if Sen. John McCain were the undisputed frontrunner in the race for the '08 GOP nomination.

ARG's recent Rhode Island poll shows McCain with the support of 50 percent of likely Republican primary voters in the state. Mitt Romney comes in second with 14 percent. Newt Gingrich rounds out the top three with 4 percent. Giuliani's name isn't even on the list of candidates respondents are asked to choose from.

When Rudy Giuliani is added to a second question on the GOP primary in ARG's poll, it's McCain 43 percent, Giuliani 19 percent.

So, what does this mean? It means that any candidate added in a second question like this is likely to register a far lower level of support than if they'd been included as a top-tier candidate in the first question. ARG lists McCain, Romney, Gingrich, George Pataki (George Pataki!?!?!?), George Allen, Sam Brownback, Bill Frist, Chuck Hagel, and Mike (I heart) Huckabee as first-tier candidates, but thinks Rudy Giuliani shouldn't be on the table until the second question?

Assuming that these two questions must at least be randomized to make these legitimate polls (so that the order wouldn't matter), I shot an email over to ARG to ask what was up. This is the response I got from Dick Bennett:

We added Giuliani after the first ballot and did not randomize the order of the questions.

While he has been more active lately, there are still no signs on the ground that he will run. I continue to hear from activists that Giuliani will only get in the race if McCain does not.

Hope this is helpful.

Yes, it is. It lets me know that as far as the race between McCain and Giuliani going into '08, ARG's polls not only can, but must, be ignored.

So, how does the other polling on the McCain-Giuliani contest pan out? Well, the polling from Strategic Vision, for instance, shows Giuliani well ahead in most of the states the firm has polled.

Here are their respective percentages in a few states, as measured by SV:

[Giuliani / McCain]

PA: 39 / 28
WA: 35 / 28
FL: 39 / 28
GA: 27 / 22
N.J.: 45 / 32
WI: 28 / 25
N.Y.: 53 / 13

One exception in the SV polls is Michigan, where McCain leads 39 / 22.

[except for New York, all those samples are of likely voters -- in New York, the sample is of registered voters]

So, lastly, why does all this matter? Well, because in crucial primary states such as Iowa and South Carolina, ARG polls show McCain with a commanding lead. But it's likely this lead is entirely illusory, based more on a poor survey design than a reflection of reality.

As Giuliani's intentions have become more and more obvious -- and are at least on par with Newt Gingrich's as far as seriousness, to say the absolute least -- ARG should correct this immediately.

Below the fold is a look at two states, IA and MA, where ARG polling seems to conflict rather baldly with other public polls.

IOWA

ARG (likely Republican caucus voters, April 25 - May 2, 2006)

without Giuliani

John McCain: 26
Bill Frist: 10

with Giuliani

John McCain: 23
Rudolph Giuliani: 16

Victory Enterprises (potential Republican caucus attendees, Aug. 8-10, 2005)

With Giuliani on first question

Rudy Giuliani: 22
John McCain: 22

VE also polled the candidates' favorable/unfavorable/no opinion numbers:

McCain: 44/33/17
Giuliani: 66/9/16

[note that McCain has far lower favorables in Iowa, and far higher unfavorables]

MASSACHUSETTS

ARG (likely Republican primary voters, April 25 - May 2, 2006)

Without Giuliani

McCain: 48
Romney: 17

with Giuliani

John McCain: 42
Rudolph Giuliani: 21

Boston Globe poll conducted by the University of New Hampshire (likely Republican primary voters, Aug. 9-17, 2005)

Rudolph Giuliani: 29
John McCain: 26
Mitt Romney: 19

Now, admittedly, in both cases the Rudy-optimistic poll was taken in 2005 and the Rudy-less-optimistic poll was taken in 2006. But I haven't seen one poll over time that's shown such a massive drop-off in support for Rudy. This is clearly a methodology question. And ARG's wreaks havoc with Giuliani's numbers.

Posted by Ryan Sager at 09:55 AM | Email Author | Permalink

Most writers on foreign policy offer up the usual cant. One notable exception to this is Anatol Lieven, who writes fairly regularly for The National Interest, The Financial Times, and The London Review Of Books. I had a chance last year to pick up his book, America Right Or Wrong: An Anatomy of American Nationalism, and found it to be the best analysis yet on the recent tumult in American politics. He has a new book coming out this fall, written with John Hulsman, called Ethical Realism and American Foreign Policy. It should be worth reading closely. Lieven has emerged as the best analyst of the potent combination of American idealism, religious fervor, and nationalist sentiment.

In the Summer 2006 issue of The National Interest, Lieven reviews the career of Francis Fukuyama, the apostate from neoconservativism. I can't recommend the article enough, not only for its discussion of Fukuyama's interesting career, but also for Lieven's casual apercus on American life -- observations that are worth fleshing out at great length. One example:

"Truly deep and radical thought in the foreign-policy-oriented sections of U.S. academia and think tanks is deadened both by the hegemony of American civic-nationalist ideology and by the interlacing of these institutions with the organs of government. As a result, too many formally independent American experts in fact tailor their every statement so that it can never be held against them by a possible political patron or at a Senate confirmation hearing. As a retired U.S. ambassador put it to me recently, 'in terms of free debate and moral courage, there is nothing worse than a permanent campaign for unelected office.'"

That observation goes a long way to explain how the United States found itself in its current agonizing position.

Posted by Brad Carson at 08:45 AM | Email Author | Permalink

Plenty of Hamdan coverage today, led by Ron Cass here at RealClearPolitics. If you're looking for more commentary, there's an absolute deluge on Buzztracker.

Posted by Tom Bevan at 07:32 AM | Email Author | Permalink

Three new polls have come out in the last two days (FOX News, LA Times/Bloomberg, and Hotline/Diageo/FD), all showing President Bush's job approval rating at 41%. He's now over 40% in the RCP Average for the first time in months.

Democrats still hold more than a 10-point lead in the RCP Average for the Generic Congressional ballot. CNN, FOX, and Hotline all show the Dems' lead well under 10-points, however, while the LA Times, Gallup, ABC News/Wash Post and Pew all have them leading by 12-16 points.

Posted by Tom Bevan at 07:27 AM | Email Author | Permalink

That's what Charles Krauthammer calls our policy in Iraq:

The most serious misconception had nothing to do with troop levels or whether to disband an army that had already disbanded itself. It had to do with gauging Sunni intentions. Decades of iron rule over the Shiites and Kurds had left the Sunnis militantly unreconciled to any other political order. [snip]

For better or worse, we chose occupation lite. The insurgency continues, and it is not going to be defeated militarily. But that does not mean we lose. Insurgencies can be undone by co-optation. And that is precisely the strategy of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Given that his life is literally on the line in making such judgments, one should give his view some weight.

He intends to wean away elements of the insurgency by giving them a stake in the new Iraqi order. These Sunni elements -- unreconciled tribal leaders and guerrilla factions -- may well decide that with neither side having very good prospects of complete victory, accepting a place and some power in the new Iraq is a better alternative than perpetual war.

The Bush administration is firmly behind this policy. And who is sniping at it from the sidelines? Democratic senators, fresh from having voted for troop withdrawal rather than victory as our objective in Iraq, led the charge to denounce any sort of amnesty for insurgents who had killed Americans.

Apart from the hypocrisy, there is the bizarre logic: Is the best way to honor the sacrifice of those who have died in Iraq to decree an impotent, completely hypothetical policy of retribution? (Who, after all, is going to bell the cat?) Or is it to create conditions for precisely the kind of Iraq -- self-governing and internally reconciled -- that these courageous soldiers were fighting for?

Posted by Tom Bevan at 07:18 AM | Email Author | Permalink

Last Thursday, the Senate Indian Affairs Committee issued its final report on the investigation into the infamous Jack Abramoff/Michael Scanlon lobbying-related scam that bilked six Indian tribes out of an astonishing $66 million. The report also included a series of rather unflattering details for former Christian Coalition director Ralph Reed, now running as a Republican candidate for Georgia Lt. Governor's office.

According to the Committee's report, Abramoff funneled $4 million in fees from the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians to Mr. Reed's consulting firm, Century Strategies, through a number of conduits: first through Abramoff's lobbying firm Preston Gates, then via Grover Norquist's Americans For Tax Reform (ATR), and eventually through an entity controlled by Michael Scanlon called the American International Center (AIC).

Nell Rogers, a planner for the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, testified before the Committee that Abramoff indicated the use of financial conduits was necessary "to accommodate Mr. Reed's political concerns."

On the day the report was released, Mr. Reed reiterated that he was misled by Abramoff into believing the money paid to Century Stategies had not come from gaming interests. Mr. Reed also strained to play up the bright side of the Committee's findings, saying, "The report confirms that I have not been accused of any wrongdoing."

Will this be enough to persuade Georgia Republicans, who go to the polls in just over three weeks to decide Mr. Reed's fate?

A new poll taken over the weekend (after news broke of the Committee's report) showed Mr. Reed's lead over his primary opponent, Casey Cagle, shrinking to a mere three points, 44-41, down from a six-point lead in May. Also of concern: nearly half (47%) of Republicans surveyed in the poll have an unfavorable opinion of Mr. Reed.

We'll know on July 18 whether Mr. Reed will survive his first run for elective office, or whether the sticky web spun by Jack Abramoff will claim another victim.

Posted by Tom Bevan at 07:03 AM | Email Author | Permalink

No. 1: Salon.com blogger Peter Daou's friends think he's sold out by going to work for Hillary (in order to boost her netroots cred).

No. 2: The N.Y. Post wonders why '08 Dem hopeful Mark Warner has yet to fire netroots favorite Jerome Armstrong, despite the fact that he was involved in shilling for worthless dot-com stocks. The implication floated -- one has to assume by Hillary operatives -- is that Warner is afraid of getting his kneecaps busted by the Townhouse mafia.

The intersection of lefty bloggers and lefty politicians continues. A messy process.

Posted by Ryan Sager at 11:14 PM | Email Author | Permalink

Let's just keep this simple, it is not good for the Republican Party if Rick Santorum loses.

Posted by John McIntyre at 11:13 PM | Email Author | Permalink

Wow. This is embarrassing.

Usually it's the long-shot challenger who has to hound the aloof incumbent for debates. But, down by 52-34, Santorum is the one who's started a Web petition to get Bob Casey to debate him:

I am troubled that Sen. Rick Santorum's likely opponent refuses to speak directly to the voters of Pennsylvania through a series of debates. He appears to be delaying this opportunity to debate Rick Santorum and his primary opponents simply to avoid having to confront the issues and take positions.

On the other hand, Sen. Santorum continues to be outspoken about his beliefs and accomplishments, ensuring this campaign is based on substance, not rhetoric. The intensity of the 2006 campaign for U.S. Senate is escalating, and Pennsylvania voters deserve the opportunity to make an informed decision on Election Day.

I agree with Rick Santorum that discussing the issues in an open and honest forum will serve the citizens of Pennsylvania well. Bob Casey, Jr. should accept Sen. Rick Santorum's challenge immediately and agree to ten debates between now and Election Day.

Sign this petition and then ask others to join you.

It will be a healthy day for the Republican Party -- and America -- when Santorum is sent packing.

Posted by Ryan Sager at 10:59 PM | Email Author | Permalink

Part of the reason for looking at political videos every day is to find new ways politicians are using the Web to communicate with constituents.

With that in mind, here's a peak inside Rep. Jack Kingston's (R-GA) "Journeys With Jack" series being produced by his interns and distributed over YouTube.

In this video, Rep. Kingston talks with a member of the Minutemen and, oddly, a slightly out-of-character Stephen Colbert.

You can click here to browse through all of the Journey With Jack videos, including the congressman answering a question from a constituent, the congressman getting a briefing from the Minutemen, and the congressman presiding over a rather bizarre trivia contest with Ben Stein (where the comedian[?] gives disturbingly specific information as to where he lives).

You can send in nominations for the video of the day, as ever, to:

ryan-at-realclearpolitics.com

Posted by Ryan Sager at 04:29 PM | Email Author | Permalink

Yesterday Mitt Romney joined a group of religious leaders in Massachusetts to call for a ballot initiative in 2008 to define marriage between a man and a woman:

"I'm concerned whenever there is discussion that suggests that there might be a way of keeping the voters from expressing their will," said Romney, who used the word "democracy" 10 times at a State House press conference that included reporters from national news outlets.

"That's not the nature of democracy and that's not the country and the commonwealth I love," Romney said.

Romney went beyond calling for a vote on same-sex marriage, saying he shared O'Malley's belief that same-sex marriage ought to be banned.

The governor called legalized gay marriage "a huge error and wrong."

"The ideal setting of society overall, is a setting where there's a mother and a father," Romney said.

Though I personally don't favor a federal marriage amendment, I find Romney to be among its most eloquent defenders. He made a reasonable and persuasive case for the FMA in a recent letter to the Senate, and I've also seen him make the same case on the stump. Obviously, the issue appeals greatly to many Republican base voters, but I suspect the tone and tenor with which Romney approaches the subject will resonate with a broader audience as well.

Posted by Tom Bevan at 02:07 PM | Email Author | Permalink

The JPost has an interesting column on whether the current fighting in Gaza shows that Sharon's unilateral disengagement plan was wrong.

Columnist Larry Durfner says no, Sharon's way is still the right way:

The two IDF soldiers killed at Kerem Shalom this week were the first two fatalities caused by Gazan Palestinians during the 10 months since disengagement.

By comparison, Gazan Palestinians killed 148 Israelis and 11 foreigners in the five years between the September 2000 start of the intifada and last September's completion of the withdrawal, according to Foreign Ministry statistics.

Now, Durfner argues, what's needed is to secure the border with Gaza as Israel secured the border with Lebanon.

And, I might add, to continue treating the Palestinians as in an open state of war with Israel. There is not, and never has been, a peace process.

Posted by Ryan Sager at 01:34 PM | Email Author | Permalink

Will Arizona's "clean elections" system come under fire after the Supreme Court's Vermont decision?

It's certainly possible. In Vermont, the invalidated law held that individuals could donate $200 to a state House or state Senate candidate. In Arizona, the maximum is just under $600.

Sounds ripe for a challenge to me.

(hat tip: Skeptic)

Posted by Ryan Sager at 01:21 PM | Email Author | Permalink

As usual, Michael Barone has the final word on Chris Cannon's victory in Utah and what it might mean for immigration reform:

It is conventional wisdom in many quarters that Republican voters overwhelmingly favor a border-security-only approach to immigration. Cannon's victory casts some doubt on that.

Yes, there were extenuating factors; there usually are in elections. Last week, Jacob imprudently told the Salt Lake Tribune that he thought Satan was responsible for recent business reverses that prevented him from putting as much of his own money into his campaign as he had intended. Even in a very religious district--the Utah Third is the home of Brigham Young University and probably has the highest percentage of Mormons of any congressional district in the United States--that probably made him sound a little wacky. Cannon's record on issues other than immigration is impeccably conservative--a plus in a district that voted 77 percent to 20 percent for George W. Bush over John Kerry in 2004. Still, Cannon's victory stands for the proposition that support for a comprehensive immigration bill is not political death in a Republican primary, even in a very conservative district that has been affected by immigration (in 2000, 10 percent of its residents were Hispanic; presumably the percentage of Hispanics voting in the Republican primary this year was much smaller).

It should be noted that this is not the first time Cannon has been opposed in the primary by an anti-immigration candidate. In 2004, he beat Matt Throckmorton by 58 to 42 percent in a turnout of 47,335. This time, he beat Jacob by 56to 44 percent in a turnout of 57,895. Both challenges had high visibility, though Jacob evidently spent more money. Yet the results look pretty much the same in percentage terms, and the numbers suggest that an increased turnout did not bring out a landslide of anti-immigration voters.

Barone says he thinks Cannon's victory, combined with movement from folks in the Senate like Arlen Specter, now makes passage of an immigration bill this year a possibility.

Posted by Tom Bevan at 11:34 AM | Email Author | Permalink

One of the effects of the Supreme Court's upholding Texas's mid-decade redistricting is that now Democrats can try the same trick in states where they have control of the governorship and the legislature.

From ABC's The Note:

In an interview with ABC News, DCCC Chairman Rahm Emanuel identified Illinois, New York, New Jersey, Louisiana, New Mexico, and North Carolina as the ripest targets for Democrats to pursue mid-decade redistricting.

"Every party is going to squeeze every last bit of pulp out of this lemon to make lemonade and they are going to go after this with every thing that they have got," Emanuel told ABC News.

How big is this? LA Times political reporter Peter Wallsten (author of the new One Party Country, on how the GOP's electoral machine works) writes that: "By some estimates, this could mean at least five new House seats for Democrats, along with a host of newly competitive Republican seats -- an outcome that would inject parity to a political map that has tilted in the GOP's favor for more than a decade."

However, he notes that Democrats face a couple of political and structural problems that are likely to prevent them from taking advantage.

First of all, many Democrats are on the record as vociferously opposed to gerrymandering, including likely incoming New York governor Eliot Spitzer.

What's more, the racial politics would be difficult for the Democrats to manage. Typically, civil-rights leaders have looked for concentrations of black voters to elect black representatives. Distributing these black voters differently might lead to more Democrats being elected, but fewer African Americans.

Is this palatable to black leaders as part of a strategy to even the electoral playing field with Republicans? Or is it too politically volatile?

Posted by Ryan Sager at 09:57 AM | Email Author | Permalink

****SCROLL FOR UPDATES****

The Supreme Court just announced a 5-3 decision against the Bush adminstration in the Hamdan case. Right now, all the major papers are carrying the AP story from Gina Holland.

Here is the version from Reuters. And another from CNN.

UPDATE: Marty Lederman at SCOTUSblog: "The Court appears to have held that Common Article 3 of Geneva aplies to the conflict against Al Qaeda. That is the HUGE part of today's ruling."

UPDATE: Seems like Andy McCarthy's "pre-mortem" was on the money.

UPDATE: The Washington Post has now updated its page with a story by William Branigin calling the decision a "stunning rebuke to the Bush administration."

UPDATE: CNN has video of Jeffrey Toobin, Bob Franken on the decision.

UPDATE: Text of Hamdan decision in pdf format here.

UPDATE: Reuters - Ruling Won't Affect Guantanamo Inmates

UPDATE: From the Court's majority opinon, which included Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kennedy:

For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the military commission convened to try Hamdan lacks power toproceed because its structure and procedures violate both the UCMJ and the Geneva Conventions. Four of us also conclude, see Part V, infra, that the offense with which Hamdan has been charged is not an "offens[e] that by . . . the law of war may be tried by military commissions."

UPDATE: From Scalia's dissent:

On December 30, 2005, Congress enacted the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA). It unambiguously provides that, as of that date, "no court, justice, or judge" shall have jurisdiction to consider the habeas application of a Guantanamo Bay detainee. Notwithstanding this plain directive, the Court today concludes that, on what it calls the statute's most natural reading, every "court, justice, or judge" before whom such a habeas application was pending on December 30 has jurisdiction to hear, consider, and render judgment on it. This conclusion is patently erroneous. And even if it were not, the jurisdiction supposedly retained should, in an exercise of sound equitable discretion, not be exercised.

UPDATE: From Thomas's dissent:

Under either the correct, flexible approach to evaluating the adequacy of Hamdan's charge, or under the plurality's new, clear-statement approach, Hamdan has been charged with conduct constituting two distinct violations of the law of war cognizable before a military commission: membership in a war-criminal enterprise and conspiracy to commit war crimes. The charging section of the indictment alleges both that Hamdan "willfully and knowingly joined an enterprise of persons who shared a common criminal purpose," App. to Pet. for Cert. 65a, and that he "conspired and agreed with [al Qaeda] to commit . . . offenses triable by military commission," ibid.7

The common law of war establishes that Hamdan's willful and knowing membership in al Qaeda is a war crime chargeable before a military commission. Hamdan, a confirmed enemy combatant and member or affiliate of al Qaeda, has been charged with willfully and knowingly joining a group (al Qaeda) whose purpose is "to support violent attacks against property and nationals (both military and civilian) of the United States." Id., at 64a; 344 F. Supp. 2d, at 161. Moreover, the allegations specify that Hamdan joined and maintained his relationship with al Qaeda even though he "believed that Usama bin Laden and his associates were involved in the attacks on the U. S. Embassies in Kenya and Tazania in August 1998, the attack on the USS COLE in October 2000, and the attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001." App. to Pet. for Cert. 65a. These allegations, against a confirmed unlawful combatant, are alone sufficient to sustain the jurisdiction of Hamdan's military commission.

UPDATE: From Alito's dissent:

The holding of the Court, as I understand it, rests on the following reasoning. A military commission is lawful only if it is authorized by 10 U. S. C. §821; this provision permits the use of a commission to try "offenders or offenses" that "by statute or by the law of war may be tried by" sucha commission; because no statute provides that an offender such as petitioner or an offense such as the one with which he is charged may be tried by a military commission, he may be tried by military commission only if the trial is authorized by "the law of war"; the Geneva Conventions are part of the law of war; and Common Article 3 of the Conventions prohibits petitioner's trial because the commission before which he would be tried is not "a regularly constituted court," Third Geneva Convention, Art. 3, ¶1(d), Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Aug. 12, 1949, [1955] 6 U. S. T. 3316, 3320, T. I. A. S. No. 3364. I disagree with this holding because petitioner's commission is "a regularly constituted court."

UPDATE: Joint statement by Sens. Graham & Kyl:

"We are disappointed with the Supreme Court's decision. However, we believe the problems cited by the Court can and should be fixed.

"It is inappropriate to try terrorists in civilian courts. It threatens our national security and places the safety of jurors in danger. For those reasons and others, we believe terrorists should be tried before military commissions.

"In his opinion, Justice Breyer set forth the path to a solution of this problem. He wrote, 'Nothing prevents the president from returning to Congress to seek the authority he believes necessary.'

"We intend to pursue legislation in the Senate granting the Executive Branch the authority to ensure that terrorists can be tried by competent military commissions. Working together, Congress and the administration can draft a fair, suitable, and constitutionally permissible tribunal statute."

UPDATE: Senator Russ Feingold statement:

The Supreme Court's decision concerning military commissions at Guantanamo Bay is a major rebuke to an Administration that has too often disregarded the rule of law. It is a testament to our system of government that the Supreme Court has stood up against this overreaching by the executive branch.

UPDATE: Senator Cornyn statement:

"This is a blockbuster decision, and it will take some time to determine the consequences of what the Court said today. But they've opened the door to a legislative remedy, and as Congress plays a key role in this debate, we'll work with the administration to reach a solution.

"We're not talking about simple criminals--these detainees include the most violent terrorists in the world. And let's not forget who we're talking about in this particular case: Hamdan was captured in Afghanistan and is charged with delivering weapons and ammunition to al Qaeda, providing logistical support to bin Laden's bodyguards and participating in weapons training.

"The Court does not call into question the U.S. government's power to detain terrorists while hostilities continue. This is critically important because we can't allow terrorists to simply return home and restart their war plans. Guantanamo will remain open so long as it is in the national security interests of the United States."

UPDATE: Bush to work with Congress over court concerns

Posted by Tom Bevan at 09:43 AM | Email Author | Permalink

The New York Post's Deborah Orin begins her column today with a thought experiment:

Imagine the outrage, especially from the Left, if President Bush were to hire an Internet guru who had a past as a Web shill for a worthless dot-com stock.

I'm sure you know where she's going. Read the whole thing.

Posted by Tom Bevan at 08:03 AM | Email Author | Permalink

Earlier this week in the Washington Post, Sebastian Mallaby had a column on the recent study in the American Sociological Review on loneliness and social interaction in America. Dick Meyer has a piece today on the same issue. The introduction from the report sums up the main thesis:

Since 1985, the number of people saying there is no one with whom they discuss important matters nearly tripled. The mean network size decreases by about a third (one confidant), from 2.94 in 1985 to 2.08 in 2004. The modal respondent now reports having no confidant; the modal respondent in 1985 had three confidants. Both kin and non-kin confidants were lost in the past two decades, but the greater decrease of non-kin ties leads to more confidant networks centered on spouses and parents, with fewer contacts through voluntary associations and neighborhoods. The data may overestimate the number of social isolates, but these shrinking networks reflect an important social change in America.

Meyer offers several ideas on why this may be occurring:

The main culprits are work time and commutes. Both have increased since 1985 and both take time away from families, friends and voluntary participation. As women entered the workforce in bulk, the total number of hours family members spent working outside the home went way up. As people fled the cities, suburbs and exurbs boomed and so did commute times.

This especially affects "middle-aged, better-educated, higher-income families." As the paper points out, these are exactly the people who build neighborhoods and volunteer groups and those are the social structures that have most atrophied in the past 20 years.

The more speculative hypothesis is that perhaps new communications technologies have led to people forming wider, but weaker social ties that are less dependent on geography. E-mail and cheap phone calling have made it easier to stay in frequent, sometimes constant touch with lots of people, no matter where they are.....

Certainly, it's hard to escape complaints about the busy-ness and time-stress of life these days; it's an obvious, bad problem. For most people I know, it is exacerbated by the technology that is meant to make it easier for us to communicate and stay connected.

Instead of feeling in touch, many feel on a leash. Portable, gadget driven communication doesn't count as soul-feeding bonding for many people I know, but is rather a cruel mockery. Explaining social isolation will be controversial, but not as difficult as repairing it.

In my mind there is no question that the explosion of cable/satellite TV and the Internet are major contributing forces, along with a myriad of other factors that contribute to these results. But in the end what they all lead to is a deficit of time in the day.

What most of us lack in this world today is time. And building real friendships and relationships is something that takes time. And time is something we haven't figured out how to make more of.

Posted by John McIntyre at 07:09 AM | Email Author | Permalink

Apropos Seth Swirsky's column this morning contrasting the basic decency of George W. Bush with the incivility of some Democrats, here's a snippet from GQ's interview with Russ Feingold:

What are your dealings with W. like?

Feingold: You know, I haven't had a lot of face-to-face contact with him over the years. But he's been very pleasant. What struck me recently was, I had, you know, just proposed censuring him. But McCain and I had also just gone to Iraq. And Bush wanted to have all the various people who had just been to Iraq come up to the Roosevelt Room in the White House and brief him. So we walk in, and I shake his hand, and he gives me not just the regular shake but the whole deal. [demonstrates a double-fisted handshake] And he said, "How ya doin', pal?" You know.

Despite five years worth of ad hominem attacks on his intelligence, faith, integrity, etc., Bush still treats even his most ardent opponents with a great deal of decency and civility.

Needless to say, civility has not been the Democrats' strong suit in recent years - not just toward the President but Republicans in general. Howard Dean's remark from last June springs to mind: "Well, Republicans, I guess, can do that, because a lot of them have never made an honest living in their lives."

Or John Kerry's off camera attack during the 2004 Presidential campaign: "These guys are the most crooked, you know, lying group I've ever seen." After the remarks were made public and caused an uproar, Kerry famously refused to apologize, lest he be seen as weak by his Bush-hating base.

Unfortunately, Kerry's response is a perfect example of the one idea that seems to have taken deep hold on the left over the last few years which is that civility equals weakness and, conversely, that being rude and uncivil is somehow an expression of toughness and strength.

Posted by Tom Bevan at 06:54 AM | Email Author | Permalink

The other day, we checked in on National Journal's No. 2 rated Senate race (out in Montana). Today, let's look in on No. 1: the Santorum-Casey race in Pennsylvania.

Both candidates have put lengthy biography videos up on the Web.

Here's Santorum's:

And here's Casey's:

It's worth noting that Casey's video leads off the bat with this quote: "How much longer must the concerns of Pennsylvanians take a back seat to an intolerant ideology?"

Santorum's video is much more focused on his can't-get-no-respect political career, where he's been counted out and then come from behind to win.

So far, it looks like Casey's approach is doing better, by a margin of 52-34, according to the latest Quinnipiac University poll.

Posted by Ryan Sager at 05:11 PM | Email Author | Permalink

Yesterday, Pew released a poll showing the Democrats with "distinct advantages" going into this year's midterm elections.

The bullet points (summarizing their press release):

* Voters continue to say they favor the Democratic candidate in their district, by a 51% to 39% margin.

* The level of enthusiasm about voting among Democrats is unusually high, and is atypically low among Republicans. In fact, Democrats now hold a voter enthusiasm advantage that is the mirror image of the GOP's edge in voter zeal leading up to the 1994 midterm election. [46% of Democratic voters say they are more enthusiastic about voting than usual, compared with just 30% of Republicans. In October 1994, Republicans held a comparable advantage on this measure (by 45%-30%)]

* Public anger with Congress continues to rise, and anti-incumbent sentiment has reached new highs.

* Increased Democratic intensity is mostly driven by anger toward President Bush and Republican leaders, not by support for the party and its leaders. Fully 64% of Democrats say their party is doing only a fair or poor job in standing up for its traditional positions on such things as protecting the interests of minorities and helping the poor.

Read the whole report here.

Posted by Ryan Sager at 04:26 PM | Email Author | Permalink

As the Supreme Court gives a virtually complete thumbs-up to the Texas redistricting plan sired by Tom DeLay, some of the reaction has contained moments of thorough nonsense.

First among these is the notion that DeLay was involved in some Republican "power grab." If so, it was a grab only in the way that one would grab one's own property from the hands of a thief. As redistricting was undertaken, the Texas congressional delegation featured 17 Democrats and 15 Republicans, an abomination in a state as red as Texas. (I would similarly scoff if a liberal enclave like Massachusetts had a majority of Republican members of Congress).

The legislature failed to redistrict right after the 2000 census, leading judges to do it instead. The state Constitution calls for lawmakers, not judges, to draw districts, so the legislature tackled it again in 2003, arriving at a plan that made Democrats apoplectic because it stood to strip them of more than a half-dozen seats in Congress, a development an objective observer would call a return to a delegation reflective of the electorate.

But in the hands of analysts to whom anything Republicans do is bad, and anything Tom DeLay does is worse, this thoroughly proper development is couched in the most sinister of terms.

The only portion of Texas redistricting that snagged on the high court was Republican Henry Bonilla's 23rd district. Somehow the loss of some of the Hispanics there struck the justices as a denial of "minority voting rights," whatever those are.

Is there such a thing as a racial constituency's right to the likelihood of a congressman of a certain race or party? Even before that debate starts, one must dispense with the shallow analysis that a heavily Hispanic district must be a Democrat district. Rep. Bonilla, a popular Republican who stood ready to run for Kay Bailey Hutchison's U.S. Senate seat if she had run for Governor, garnered nearly 70 percent in the 2004 vote in a vast district nestled along the Mexican border.

The days when minority constituencies can be pigeonholed are dwindling. The Supreme Court seems to be behind the learning curve on that development.

- Mark Davis
Host of The Mark Davis Radio Show

Posted by Mark Davis at 03:05 PM | Email Author | Permalink

Obama: Democrats must court Evangelicals.

It sounds reasonable enough. But is it?