by Henry Wordsworth Longfellow

Listen my children and you shall hear
Of the midnight ride of Paul Revere,
On the eighteenth of April, in Seventy-five;
Hardly a man is now alive
Who remembers that famous day and year.

He said to his friend, "If the British march
By land or sea from the town to-night,
Hang a lantern aloft in the belfry arch
Of the North Church tower as a signal light,--
One if by land, and two if by sea;
And I on the opposite shore will be,
Ready to ride and spread the alarm
Through every Middlesex village and farm,
For the country folk to be up and to arm."

Then he said "Good-night!" and with muffled oar
Silently rowed to the Charlestown shore,
Just as the moon rose over the bay,
Where swinging wide at her moorings lay
The Somerset, British man-of-war;
A phantom ship, with each mast and spar
Across the moon like a prison bar,
And a huge black hulk, that was magnified
By its own reflection in the tide.

Meanwhile, his friend through alley and street
Wanders and watches, with eager ears,
Till in the silence around him he hears
The muster of men at the barrack door,
The sound of arms, and the tramp of feet,
And the measured tread of the grenadiers,
Marching down to their boats on the shore.

Then he climbed the tower of the Old North Church,
By the wooden stairs, with stealthy tread,
To the belfry chamber overhead,
And startled the pigeons from their perch
On the sombre rafters, that round him made
Masses and moving shapes of shade,--
By the trembling ladder, steep and tall,
To the highest window in the wall,
Where he paused to listen and look down
A moment on the roofs of the town
And the moonlight flowing over all.

Beneath, in the churchyard, lay the dead,
In their night encampment on the hill,
Wrapped in silence so deep and still
That he could hear, like a sentinel's tread,
The watchful night-wind, as it went
Creeping along from tent to tent,
And seeming to whisper, "All is well!"
A moment only he feels the spell
Of the place and the hour, and the secret dread
Of the lonely belfry and the dead;
For suddenly all his thoughts are bent
On a shadowy something far away,
Where the river widens to meet the bay,--
A line of black that bends and floats
On the rising tide like a bridge of boats.

Meanwhile, impatient to mount and ride,
Booted and spurred, with a heavy stride
On the opposite shore walked Paul Revere.
Now he patted his horse's side,
Now he gazed at the landscape far and near,
Then, impetuous, stamped the earth,
And turned and tightened his saddle girth;
But mostly he watched with eager search
The belfry tower of the Old North Church,
As it rose above the graves on the hill,
Lonely and spectral and sombre and still.
And lo! as he looks, on the belfry's height
A glimmer, and then a gleam of light!
He springs to the saddle, the bridle he turns,
But lingers and gazes, till full on his sight
A second lamp in the belfry burns.

A hurry of hoofs in a village street,
A shape in the moonlight, a bulk in the dark,
And beneath, from the pebbles, in passing, a spark
Struck out by a steed flying fearless and fleet;
That was all! And yet, through the gloom and the light,
The fate of a nation was riding that night;
And the spark struck out by that steed, in his flight,
Kindled the land into flame with its heat.
He has left the village and mounted the steep,
And beneath him, tranquil and broad and deep,
Is the Mystic, meeting the ocean tides;
And under the alders that skirt its edge,
Now soft on the sand, now loud on the ledge,
Is heard the tramp of his steed as he rides.

It was twelve by the village clock
When he crossed the bridge into Medford town.
He heard the crowing of the cock,
And the barking of the farmer's dog,
And felt the damp of the river fog,
That rises after the sun goes down.

It was one by the village clock,
When he galloped into Lexington.
He saw the gilded weathercock
Swim in the moonlight as he passed,
And the meeting-house windows, black and bare,
Gaze at him with a spectral glare,
As if they already stood aghast
At the bloody work they would look upon.

It was two by the village clock,
When he came to the bridge in Concord town.
He heard the bleating of the flock,
And the twitter of birds among the trees,
And felt the breath of the morning breeze
Blowing over the meadow brown.
And one was safe and asleep in his bed
Who at the bridge would be first to fall,
Who that day would be lying dead,
Pierced by a British musket ball.

You know the rest. In the books you have read
How the British Regulars fired and fled,---
How the farmers gave them ball for ball,
From behind each fence and farmyard wall,
Chasing the redcoats down the lane,
Then crossing the fields to emerge again
Under the trees at the turn of the road,
And only pausing to fire and load.

So through the night rode Paul Revere;
And so through the night went his cry of alarm
To every Middlesex village and farm,---
A cry of defiance, and not of fear,
A voice in the darkness, a knock at the door,
And a word that shall echo for evermore!
For, borne on the night-wind of the Past,
Through all our history, to the last,
In the hour of darkness and peril and need,
The people will waken and listen to hear
The hurrying hoof-beats of that steed,
And the midnight message of Paul Revere.

The San Diego Union-Tribune's Insight Editor Robert Caldwell offered one of his as-usual insightful and blunt analysis last Sunday on the terrorism situation. You can read it here. And it's more important now in light of the new Iraqi government being in place...plus the sad news about the Marine. These may seem like (and are) acts of madness...but there is a grand plan.

Patrick Belton at the always level-headed Oxblog noticed this interesting tidbit.

This week the Supreme Court shocked some by nixing a law passed by Congress aimed at keeping kids away from Internet porn. This drew mixed interpretations on various blogs of varying political outlooks.

Now, Newsday says, it's time for the Congress to try again because the issue is too important. It's editorial says in part:
There is almost certainly a way to shield children from sexually explicit material on the Internet without unconstitutionally infringing on adults' First Amendment rights, but Congress hasn't found it yet. That's the message the Supreme Court sent to Capitol Hill Tuesday when it ruled that the Child Online Protection Act is probably unconstitutional.

Washington should take another crack at striking an acceptable balance that will protect free speech and children by looking to technology rather than criminal sanctions.......

But to pass legal muster, an Internet pornography law must employ the least restrictive means possible to achieve its objective. That's actually an elegant legal formulation. It seeks to allow children to be shielded while ensuring that free speech is curtailed as little as necessary.

The Supreme Court didn't reject the 1998 law outright. It sent the dispute back to the U.S. District Court in Philadelphia for trial. So government lawyers can try to prove that the law is the least restrictive way to limit access to Internet porn by people under 17. It imposes a $50,000 fine and 6six months in jail for knowingly posting content that is "harmful to minors" on the Web for commercial purposes. To guard against criminal charges, providers would have to require a credit card or age verification from customers.

The court suggested a better alternative: Promoting the use of filtering software to block access to explicit material. It would be less restrictive than the disputed law and, according to the government's own Commission on Child Internet Protection, more effective than criminal sanctions.

Filters, if effective, would allow selective screening on the receiving end rather than universal restrictions at the source. Adults would not have to identify themselves to gain access to material they have a right to see. Filters would block not only U.S.-made pornography, but the 40 percent that originates outside the country. And filters would not require criminalizing any speech. They're not a perfect solution, but filters have the distinct advantage of being constitutional.
Tip: invest in computer SOFTWARE....

This has not been a good two weeks for third party candidate Ralph Nader. First he was rejected by his former buds in the Green Party. Then there was the screechfest with Democratic black members of Congress who told him to get out of the race. Now he can't get on the Arizona ballot. And he's accusing the Democrats of playing dirty tricks on him (dirty tricks? In American politics? NO WAY!)..

But something tells us that this campaign won't be the respectful cake-walk for RN like four years ago -- when Republicans encouraged him to take votes away from the old version of Al Gore (Gore has changed, you know...) and Democrats made nice to him because they didn't want to upset him.

We predict this time the gloves will come off...because Nader is taking his gloves of as you can see above...and by this below:

(IsraelNN.com) On Tuesday, as broadcast on the American cable network C-Span, independent presidential candidate and environmental crusader Ralph Nader said the following:

"What has been happening over the years is a predictable routine of foreign visitation from the head of the Israeli government. The Israeli puppeteer travels to Washington. The Israeli puppeteer meets with the puppet in the White House, and then moves down Pennsylvania Avenue, and meets with the puppets in Congress. And then takes back billions of taxpayer dollars. It is time for the Washington puppet show to be replaced by the Washington peace show."

He made the speech as part of a conference of the Council for the National Interest titled, "The Muslim Vote in Election 2004". In addition to Nader, speakers included Ambassador Edward Peck, former Iraq Chief of Mission and others.

This can be interpreted in many ways...and something tells us Nader might not be given a pass (by the press or his foes) this time.

UPDATE:One of the facscinating aspects of Nader's candidacy this time is how his support from Republicans has changed this time around, and the kind of reaction it's getting.

Remember that there is nothing that's illegal about that support or even slightly politically immoral (actually there is NO SUCH THING as "political morality"). It's a valid part of the political process. Democrats were absolutely thrilled when Ross Perot siphoned votes from Poppy Bush in 1992. In the latest development, Nader has now accepted the endorsement of the former Perot/Pat Buchanan Reform Party.

But you can see here that GOP support is not even covert during this election. And it's being turned into a news story, which is not going to help Nader in terms of votes, attracting his former Green Party supporters, or encouraging a Democratic strategy of trying to placate or ignore him. (We just read the this column linked above -- looks like he ran my post, from the first sentence!)

So as all the fuss is made about Ralph just remember: there really is nothing politically wrong about helping Nader to siphon votes away from John Kerry. What IS off kilter is Nader repeatedly insisting nothing of the sort is going on and telling Demcrats that his candidacy will actually hurt George Bush.

Either he's not as smart as we all thought he was for years (and The Moderate Voice grew up watching a young cruisading Ralph Nader in his home state of Connecticut) -- or he's not being honest with voters.

We know you have Liberals and Conservatives. A Liberal doesn't doubt for one milli-second that a Conservative is indeed conservative. And a Conservative doesn't doubt that a Liberal holds liberal beliefs. But a moderate?? And why should anyone care?

In his brand new blog Tutakai, Jason Steck (we quoted his review "Michael Moore's Mendacity" at the end of our Michael Moore post) looks at this issue very seriously -- and he argues that there are substantive policy reasons why it matters a great deal. In a post titled Militantly Moderate he makes several points you don't see on too many websites. A few excerpts:

The first thing to understand about being a moderate is that almost no one will ever believe that you actually are a moderate. Bizarre as it may sound, people will believe that their right to label you trumps any right of yours to describe your own beliefs. They may create "tests" that you have to meet before they will consent to consider you a moderate -- generally, these tests will involve you agreeing with them in both style and substance.

That leads to the second curious experience about being a moderate -- most political junkies will not only label you, but will almost automatically assume that the appropriate label is "enemy". As a moderate, you will be assumed to be on the other side. ....

And that leads to the third strange part about being a moderate -- you will find yourself having far more in common with the politically disengaged than with your fellow political junkies. Because modern American political rhetoric has become so degraded and poisonous, most of the vast number of potential voters who are moderates have found themselves turned off by the stridency and unreasonableness of the extremists who deploy their shrill, loud voices to dominate the political stage.

This is where the militant moderate comes in. Its time that moderates stopped being rhetorical doormats for extremists of left and right......... Moderates are in a position to draw upon the intellectual and rhetorical resources of both sides and to begin to construct a genuine middle road for public policy that avoids the wild vacillations between left and right...

Being open and engaged with arguments from both sides has the effect of an innoculation against most forms of political pathologies, trendy ideologies, and fleeting infections of political passions.

And now comes that dreaded phrase you all fear: Read the whole thing.

You-know-what must be freezing over.

Just for a second, forget all the speculation about John Kerry running with Hillary as his Veep and how smart that'd be. Or running with John Edwards and how smart that would be. Or running with Dick Gephardt and how dumb that would be (that would be the ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ Ticket. But the Washington Post says it is a distinct possibility).

Michele Malkin notes that Kerry may have finally made a SMART political move.

Unless you've been living on Venus, you may know that the Kerry campaign so far has largely consisted of being the anti-Bush --being an almost Thomas E. Dewey-like campaign aimed to not upset anyone but being just visible enough to be an alternative to an incumbent who is perceived in some quarters to be in trouble.

Malkin (who has a great new blog by the way) reminds us that in 1992 Bill Clinton had his political-history-making Sister Souljah Moment and Malkin even gives us this link that explains exactly what it is.

In case you're too lazy to click or your finger is physically challenged (hope that is the right term), the SSM is defined by World History.Com as "...a political tactic wherein a politician publicly repudiates an allegedly extremist person, statement, or position nominally having some affiliation with the politician, in order to appeal to a large centrist voting base. The term originates from the 1992 presidential candidacy of the Democratic politician Bill Clinton" -- when Clinton publically blasted the rapper in a way that a Republican candidate would, and is believed to have polished his centrist image (and picked up votes).

In the case of Kerry, Malin writes:

I have long assumed that John Kerry is as much of an open-borders advocate as George W. Bush, if not more so. But yesterday, Kerry struck a different note. He told the Spanish-language television outlet Telemundo that he opposes granting driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. "I think that driver's licenses are part of the legality of being here," he said.

This is the Sister Souljah moment of the 2004 presidential campaign. In fact, it's even better than a Sister Souljah moment. When Bill Clinton distanced himself from Sister Souljah, he was merely taking the same (presumed) position as his opponent, then-president George H.W. Bush. (Bush hadn't commented on Sister Souljah, but everyone knew he was no more a fan than Clinton.)

In this case, Kerry simultaneously proves his willingness to stand up to an important far-left ethnic constituency, as Clinton did, and highlights an important Bush vulnerability. (Bush's brother, Florida Governor Jeb Bush, strongly supports giving drivers' licenses to illegal aliens--the same position that helped get Gray Davis ousted from the California governorship last fall.)

She also urges Kerry not to back off from this stance as well as noting:

(1)California is really not competitive. Every four years Republicans say they think they have a chance in CA, and they usually don't (definitely seems like wasted $$$ to us)

(2)She's quite certain now that Kerry wouldn't stick to this position once he gets in -- but the point, she notes, is what Kerry is doing now and what it does to the political mix in the election campaign.

Is the prospect serious or silly? And who was the source?

One of the oddest things about the American electorate, to me, has always been the peculiar notion that Presidents control the economy. This to me has long seemed like an odd notion because, if you study our system as it's structured today, Presidents really have terribly limited influence on it.

For example, though conservatives like to blame Jimmy Carter for the bad economy of the late 1970s, this is a bum rap. He was in office too little time to have a major effect on it, and policies he put in place actually helped the economy after he left office. Indeed, he was the man who put Paul Volker in charge of the Federal Reserve, and it was Volker, not Reagan, who had the most to do with the monetary policies that resulted in economic improvements we saw in the 1980s.

Presidents make a difference in the economy generally by either proposing bold, sweeping, radical changes--which they almost never do--or by making comparatively minor contributions with tax and regulatory policy. And whatever they do, it generally takes a minimum of one year to have any effect at all, and more realistically 2-3 years before any impact is really measurable. And that effect, whatever it is, is usually small.

Yet Gallup notes once again that about 4 in 10 Americans think that a President's most important job is managing the economy.

I understand why politicians want us to buy into this. When times are good, Presidents want to take credit for it. When times are bad, their opponents want to blame them for it. Ultimately though, woudln't it be healthier if we all stopped acting like the economy is something the President controls? What, do we think the man sits in the White House fiddling with knobs and levers? The most important economic factors are things that no President could ever control, unless we became a fascist dictatorship or a communist collective or something.

The older I get, the more bemused I become by this viewpoint.

Tom McMahon has a neat little game: he'll show you the results of the electoral college votes going back through history, and you guess which election it was. A neat diversion for history geeks like me.

Frank J. notes that the top-grossing documentary of all-time is Jackass: The Movie, if we're going by the standard of what makes something a "documentary" these days.

Seems appropriate.

In the meantime, Resurrection Song feels that Michael Moore now represents the center of the Democratic Party. Sad if so, although I hope that's just hyperbole.

Republicans have talked a good game about supporting the concept of federalism and the 10th amendment to the Bill of Rights in recent years, i.e. letting the states decide contentious social issues for themselves and keeping the Federal government out of it.

I support this concept. Have for a long time. Death penalty, gun registration, abortion, speed limits, school vouchers, and so on are all issues that can be dealt with most appropriately at the state level. That way you as a citizen have an easier time having your voice heard when you want an issue changed, and if you just can't persuade your fellow citizens to see things your way, you can move to a state that's more to your liking.

Franklin Roosevelt himself once noted that the great thing about the federal system was that the states could serve as hothouses for experiments in new laws and government programs. The lessons learned in one state would be instructive to the others, or to any proposed Federal programs.

What I find most interesting, however, is that certain people talk a good game about federalism, then do a 180 when it comes to issues like medical marijuana.

Frankly, I've long thought people who oppose medical marijuana are simply cruel and heartless. Still, if the issue's that contentious, you'd think that it's the perfect sort of issue to be decided at the state level. What in the entire Constitution gives the feds authority to outlaw pot--for any reason? Regulating its commerce across state lines, sure, banning its importation, maybe. But outright banning it? I don't think so.

It certainly sounds like it might have been a good idea....Because there more and more questions being raised.

(Note: The ONLY reason The Moderate Voice is not going to read BC's book is that he does NOT read 900 page autobiographies, even though he loves autobios and especially books written by politicos. He just got two considerably shorter books by political expert Larry Sabato on Amazon.com and will read them).

Boi From Troy has decided to start a Digital Brown Shirts Alliance. He means it sardonically, of course. But I'd caution him to note that some people will take him seriously.

Peak Talk, meanwhile, decries the growing polarization in the country's politics.

I remain of the opinion that the Democrats have become so rage- and hate-filled not because of anything this administration has done, but because they fear that if they lose this election, it will signal a sea change in American politics, and the Democratic Party will have to reconstruct itself from the top down. Thus they'll throw every rage-bomb they can, and even speak well of and defend inexcusably dishonest hate-merchants because they think it will help them drive up the base in November.

Honestly, I'm waiting for one of them to say "extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice."

Georgia Senator Zell Miller, the Republicans' favorite Democrat, will be speaking at the GOP convention. And it's being described in news stories (and on web logs) as something of a coup.

Miller has assumed a role in recent months akin to the late Governor John Connelly of Texas, who switched from being a Democrat to a Republican under President Richard Nixon. Only in this case Miller, who is retiring from the Senate, is not actually switching parties. In a larger sense, his status reflects the exodus over the years of many conservative Democrats to the GOP fold. Only in this case he hasn't formally left.

According to news reports, Miller will give his speech on Wednesday night of the four-day August convention in NYC. The Bush campaign's proud annoucement is expected Monday.

Needless to say, Democrats aren't exactly pleased:

Bobby Kahn, the chairman of the Georgia Democratic Party, said he wasn't surprised.


"Maybe I'll switch to the Republican Party so I can speak at the Democratic Convention and bash Bush," Kahn said. "It makes about as much sense."


Kahn was a top aide to Democratic Gov. Roy Barnes, who appointed Miller to the Senate following the death of Miller's predecessor, Republican Sen. Paul Coverdell.


"I advocated his appointment," Kahn said of Miller. "He said he would be independent and he was for a while, but he hasn't been lately. He's been in lockstep with the Republicans and I don't know what's happened to him. It's really kind of sad."

Actually, the Republicans needn't be so elated and the Democrats needn't fret so much.

Miller isn't going to change significant poll numbers on this race, nor will any of his comments lambasting his party be a big revelation (but they will liven the convention up). He has had a high profile for a while now with his criticism of his party and various Democrats via his lively book, plus appearances on radio and cable talk shows.

HOWEVER, his appearance will underscrore how the Democratic party's center has shifted over the years. That Joe Lieberman is considered by many to be a conservative Democrat shows how greatly the party's center of gravity has changed.

More than anything, his speech will be a way for him and the GOP to irk the Democrats...but it won't change whatever poll results are prevailing at the time, and won't change the Bush-Kerry-Nader dynamics.

And, in the end, he'll be overshadowed by the Convention's real star -- California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

The upcoming election is becoming yet even MORE fascinating. A poll shows that undecided swing voters are vanishing and truly at a premium -- and a leading political expert uses historical trends to tell us who's now ahead.

The two developments:

(1)A USA Today poll finds that not only are most voters not changing their minds, but they are in effect emitting a giant "NO WAY" when asked about if their minds could be changed:

Though the traditional Labor Day start of the campaign is still two months away, a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll taken Monday through Wednesday shows that swing voters already are scarce. Eight of 10 registered voters say there is "no chance whatsoever" that they will switch from their candidate to the other guy.

There are fewer voters who might be lured by TV ads or position papers than in previous elections, one more sign of a polarized electorate. About this time in 1992, 62% of registered voters said they were open to changing their minds. In 1996, that number dropped to 39%. In 2000, it was 28%.

Now, 18% of registered voters say they might be persuaded to change their minds, and 2% are undecided.

That shrinking pool accounts for the limited movement between President Bush and Democrat John Kerry. Despite relentless campaigning, they have stayed within 6 percentage points of each other among likely voters since early March. In this survey, President Bush has moved ahead, 48%-47%.

And, the poll found, (no surprise here) Bill Clinton still divides the nation:

While 50% say they're "glad he has left," 46% say they "miss him now that he is gone." There's more consensus about his new book, My Life. One-third of those surveyed say they think the book is an attempt to "completely and truthfully" describe events in his life.

The more prevalent view: 61% call it an effort by Clinton to look better and settle scores.

(2)Political expert Larry Sabato on June 10 used the 1980 Reagan-Carter-Anderson race to analyze the upcoming 2004 Bush-Kerry-Nader race and he had some warnings for President Bush. And now he's analyzed some things again and he has come to some surprising conclusions, if you read what he wrote before (and you probably have because lots of analysts recently "borrowed" his previous work without attributing it to him, hoping you'd think it was their brilliant analysis. Sabato one-ups them and his previous anlaysis here...)

Hey, I wasn't the one who said it. HE said it (and last time a politician talked like this the other guy was denounced all over the airwaves and Internet...will HE?)

UPDATE:
--Wonkette offers these new details...
--Just as we suspect, the hypocrisy of that $@&^! language being defended when it was so awful some time ago is being pointed out...but at someone different than who you'd suspect. But then, a new person under the microscope for his defending the #*&^!@!! language is indeed inconsistent, given his public comments in the past...

Rand Simberg notes a lecture that all professional journalists should read.

One of our regular commenters, who goes by the moniker "maor," recently got off a good line in the comments that I wanted to highlight. On the subject of "wedge issues," meaning controversial issues that tend to divide people, an obvious question comes to mind:

What the heck is wrong with wedge issues in general??!!

You guys actually WANT the elections to be decided by hair?

You can't say it's not a good point.

The evidence of where the once-respected BBC is coming from mounts every day..........

Sheila's got a neat series of articles on Rebecca West's World War I history that are making me want to read this book. As if I didn't have enough to do.

Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball political analysis sees Kerry ahead and tells you what states to watch and why. And the University of Virginia's non-partisan political analyst gives you not only a state by state breakdown but a special way to look at each state. MUST reading for political junkies. (NOTE: The Moderate Voice likes his stuff so much he just ordered two of his books off amazon.com and will review them there when he's done).

....and now he's running around with Georgie....

It's wedge issue time, where you try to force your opponent into a taking a stand on an uncomfortable issue. But will this one backfire...since the administration's problem now is not with its base but in adding votes to its base? We'll see but the scene is set:

Senate Republicans announced on Friday they will seek a vote to ban same-sex marriage next month, forcing Democrats to stake out positions just weeks before their presidential nominating convention.

While many Republicans admit they lack the votes to pass the proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Democrats charge they are pushing the ban largely to rally the Republicans' conservative base and divide voters.

"We don't consider this as a divisive issue," Sen. Wayne Allard, a Colorado Republican, said in rejecting such criticism at a Capitol Hill news conference.

Of course. And French Fries, mashed potatoes, bread and pizza don't violate the Atkins diet...More:

"Support for this amendment comes from a cross-section of America," said Allard, chief sponsor of the measure, which would define marriage as a union strictly between a man and a woman.


"We didn't pick this battle," added Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas. "This was thrust upon us" by activist judges and officials in Massachusetts and California, two of the nation's most liberal states.

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out...

To Arnold or not to Arnold???

The speculation over the John Kerry Veepstakes continues more than ever...since The Challenger will be unveiling his selection in this quaint detour from Democracy (the Vice Presidential candidate is almost always handpicked by the candidate then ratified by the party versus being picked by voters in primaries as is the Prez candidate...or picked bosses in some backgroom, which is what democracy used to be all about..) soon.

Who will it be? John Edwards (one of the few politocos on the scene who has that "something" voters personally like)? Dick Gephardt (akin to CBS announcing it has a brand new idea for a TV show called Gilligan's Island)? Howard Dean (the personal likeability rating of a meter maid)? Some other solid Democrats who won't hurt the ticket?

Or there be a surprise....like this guy?

Our vile and inexcusable campaign finance laws, which were "reformed" recently in a way that any free speech advocate should find vomit-inducing, have caused a number of groups that fight for political causes they believe in to find creative ways to work around them. It's more than a little shameful that in the land of the 1st amendment, they have to do such things, but there you have it.

As it happens, the NRA is one such group and, whatever you feel about the NRA as an organization, if you respect freeom of speech you should wish them all the luck in the world.

Cam Edwards, a host on the new NRA radio show, send me the following note yesterday:

Tomorrow's a pretty exciting day for freedom of speech. NRAnews.com, on which I've been hosting a three-hour-a-day talk show for the past two months, will be heard on Sirius Satellite Radio beginning tomorrow at 2 p.m. EST.

Why is this such a big deal? Some folks don't believe that groups like the NRA, or the AARP, or the Sierra Club, should be heard as we get closer to elections. Wealthy individuals like George Soros are welcome to spend as much of their fortune as they want to defeat a politician, but not these other groups.

There's a group that's exempt from these campaign finance laws, however. Media organizations are free to talk about candidates, discuss voting records, etc. right up until election day. Two months ago NRAnews.com was born, and I think we've done a great job of providing the news since then. If you haven't listened, I encourage you to try it out. While 2nd Amendment issues are certainly daily topics of conversation, politics and pop culture (as well as 1st amendment related issues) are always in the mix.

And of course, I'd be remiss if I didn't take a moment to pimp for a link to the site. I hope you'll like what we do enough to let others know about us.

By the way, Cam sent me that note yesterday, which means the show starts today.

Break a leg, guys.

(By the way, Cam runs a pretty good personal weblog, too.)

Owen's got a pretty good piece on how the Allies viewed World War II that applies to a lot of people's thinking today. It certainly applies to my own, anyway.

James Joyner has some interesting commentary on how little-divided the country actually is as compared to how divided we often think it is. It seems that it's the political people who are the most divided, not the average American.

And yet, the biggest arguments are often fought over the smallest things, aren't they?

Do you ever look back 20 years and wish you hadn't said certain things?

That's the hazard of writing down your opinions and leaving a paper trail for them.

Still, those who do not learn from the past....

To paraphrase someone who has been mentioned a little bit this week, "Here we go again..." The AP:

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. - Touchscreen voting machines in 11 counties have a software flaw that could make manual recounts impossible in November's presidential election, state officials said.

A spokeswoman for the secretary of state called the problems "minor technical hiccups" that can be resolved, but critics allege voting officials wrongly certified a voting system they knew had a bug.

Yes...but a quiet hiccup is only a step away from a noisy belch.

The problem is that you have conflicting, almost irreconcilable, world views -- mirror image perceptions of insidious motives. Neither side accepts what the other claims. You can hear the tick-tick-tick as a controversy timebomb begins to count down to The Big Moment. More:

The electronic voting machines are a response to Florida's 2000 presidential election fiasco, where thousands of punchcard ballots were improperly marked. But the new machines have brought concerns that errors could go unchecked without paper records of the electronic voting.


The machines, made by Election Systems & Software of Omaha, Neb., fail to provide a consistent electronic "event log" of voting activity when asked to reproduce what happened during the election, state officials said.


Officials with the company and the state Division of Elections said they believe they can fix the problem by linking the voting equipment with laptop computers. Florida's two largest counties — Miami-Dade and Broward — are among those affected by the flaws.

It's going to have to be a truly solid, convincing solution. It could even help the Democrats if they use it as a rallying call to get their voters out to vote. You can see the seeds slowly blossom now:

Rep. Robert Wexler, D-Fla., has asked state Attorney General Charlie Crist to investigate whether the head of the state elections division lied under oath when he denied knowing of the computer problem before reading about it in the media. A spokeswoman for Crist said he was reviewing the request.


The elections chief, Ed Kast, abruptly resigned Monday, saying he wanted a change of pace.

Yes. Just like CIA Director George Tenet resigned to spend more time with his family. But we're not through yet:

During a May 17 deposition for a lawsuit Wexler filed seeking to require a paper trail for state voting machines, Kast said he had recently heard of the problem only days earlier. But in a letter to Crist, Wexler said the Miami-Dade Election Reform Coalition, a citizens' group, notified Kast and Secretary of State Glenda Hood of the glitch in March.

Hood blamed Miami-Dade Supervisor of Elections Constance Kaplan for the delay, telling Kaplan in a May 13 letter she should have notified state officials when she learned of the problem in June 2003.

Nonetheless, state and county election officials insist the problem can be resolved in the five months before the November election.

"These are minor technical hiccups that happen," said Hood spokeswoman Nicole DeLara. "No votes are lost, or could be lost."

Wexler and coalition members said they want to know how the state can be sure that glitches will not prevent elections officials from even detecting computer malfunctions.

"How do you know that any votes were lost if your audit is wrong?" asked Lida Rodriguez-Taseff, chairwoman of the Miami-Dade coalition.

State officials say there is no need for recounts, or an audit trail, with the touchscreen system because it was designed to prevent people from voting in the same race more than once — an overvote — and provide multiple alerts to voters to warn them when they are skipping a race — an undervote.

They emphasize that the "glitch" in the touchscreen machines occurs when the audit is done after the election, not when the tally sheet is printed in each precinct when polls close.

So it seems that even before it has formally debuted Florida's new, improved voting system is as controversial as ever.

QUESTION: Should the Supreme Court set aside the date to handle the 2004 Florida election results now, or wait awhile?

A debate about that is raging in legal circles, political circles...and on blogs. As usual, one of the most precise comments comes from Oxblog, where David Adesnik writes:

I recognize that there are certain extreme situations in which torture is justified. If a terrorist knows that a chemical warhead is about to explode in downtown Baghdad, then the gloves come off.

But in general, I think is premature to say either that torture is an efficient method of interrogation or that it is the only method. Moreover, the negative repercussions of torture in terms of both domestic and foreign opinion are so great that we can only afford to use it as a method of last resort.

That's about as definitive a statement, and concisely put, as you'll see anywhere.

I love this personal reminiscense of Ronald Reagan of Jerry Pournelle's.

There are certain images that embed themselves forever. I suddenly realized today that one of those images emblazoned forever upon my soul is that moment when Nancy put her cheek on his flag-draped coffin.

By the way, don't miss John Cole's snarky but on-target photo-essay. I must admit I laughed my ass off.

Be sure to check out John Cole's excellent article on the American military funeral traditions, which is particularly timely considering the ongoing funeral of President Reagan.

Heh. Seems familiar somehow.

Heh.

That Truman knew how to plan, didn't he?

Gallup has an interesting article up comparing Reagan's historical approval ratings, which (like all Presidents) tended to go up and down over time, with his approval ratings after leaving office, which have consistently gone up since then, and now show him to have been one of the most popular Presidents in history, with those viewing him negatively a quite small and shrinking minority.

Makes sense to me. I despised him when he was President myself, but now I view him as in the same league as either of the Roosevelts in terms of importance, influence, and effectiveness. Although hardly perfect. But then, no one who's ever held that office was perfect.

Back in January, in the comments to this thread, Sheila asked me what happened to change my mind about communism. I had once been an apologist for it, and she was curious about my change of heart. This is what I said:

Well, while I'd like to tell you there was some dramatic event that caused the change, but it wasn't. It was a sort of gradual thing, mostly. Part of it was that I became self-employed, and did that for a number of years, and started to realize as a result that there's not much in this world that anyone can do for you unless they have power, and you have to give someone power in order to let them do things for you.

If that makes any sense? I'm not sure.

Then there was learning about the Berlin Wall. I for a while bought into the fact that it was a "defensive" wall, until I started to see documentaries and read about it, and I had to ask myself: "If their system is so great, why are they shooting people in the back for trying to escape?"

Last week I was in Grand Rapids for a wedding, and by coincidence the Gerald Ford Museum was across the street from our hotel. President Ford was a congressman from that area, and that's where he still lives. So being a history geek I went to check it out. Not that he was all that amazing a Presidenet, but what the hell, it was right across the street. There was a huge slab from the Berlin Wall there in the lobby. It was concrete, with metal wires and rocks embedded in it. On one side were some black painted-on numbers. On the other, wildly colorful graffiti. It was obvious by this alone which side had faced West, and which East. I remember reaching up to touch it, feeling the cold concrete reality of it, and my soul thrummed a little.

I used to apologize for these people. I felt a little ashamed, and a little proud. My country, my Presidents, helped tear down this wall.

Like you, I enjoy history. I've read any number of books, and magazine articles, on this subject over the last 15 years. But about a year and a half ago, I picked up a copy of "The Black Book of Communism," and read it from cover to cover. Reading it was sort of the breaking point for me. I mean, by then I'd already decided I had been wrong, that Communism was by its very nature an impossible system, one that could only oppress people if it were ever to work. So I already knew I was wrong, that I'd been foolish, that it was a good thing the Soviet Union was gone. But I don't know if I can describe what it was like reading this book anyway. It was, and is, the only work which attempts to simply list all the crimes of Communism in one place. The crimes of every regime are listed there, the big ones and the little ones: the Soviet Union, Poland, China, Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Cuba, Chile, Peru... everywhere where Communists had an influence, big or small.

It was gripping, and it was hard, and I made myself read every page of it. I felt like a puppy getting his nose rubbed in a pile of shit. Often I just sat and read. Sometimes, my hands shook. A few times, I cried. And I can only tell you my conclusion:

I hate these people. And if you don't, there's something wrong with you.

I have a friend who likes to say that hate is an unhealthy emotion because it makes you sick inside. But I always argue with him. I say that hate is a normal human emotion, and that it only sickens you if you hate the wrong people. If you can't hate mass-murderers and people who crush the human spirit, then there is something sick in your soul already. If you can't hate an Adolph Hitler or a Joseph Stalin or a Mao Tse Tung, there's something sad about you. In my view, anyway. Not because it's about despising your fellow man, but because it's about despising the worst in the human animal.

In the 1940s, Joseph Stalin erected a wall in Berlin to keep people who sought freedom from escaping. Freedom-loving people everywhere opposed him.

I was born in 1966. Lyndon Johnson was President at that time. After him, in order, there was Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush. Perhaps after Bush there will be Kerry, or perhaps not. But I have no doubt, no doubt at all, that the greatest words spoken by a President in my lifetime were these:

General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!

I voted against Ronald Reagan in my first vote for President in 1984.

In retrospect, I was a fool.

Bloggers of all persuasions are commenting on former President Ronald Reagan, who passed away yesterday. Some are passing judgement (good and bad) on his legacy.

What follows is only a small sampling of comments, differing opinions and links. We offer this to help you explore weblogs' comments on Reagan. There are many more blogs that have commented so we're only listing a cross section of those that posted original comments on him and/or his death. There is literally an opinion to suit every voter on the subject of Ronald Reagan. Here are some for starters:

--GREG PIPER was too young to pay much attention to Reagan when he was president, but from what he's read and seen now he is greatly impressed:

He was a mortal, to be sure, but a great man with a winning combination of intellect and charisma that changed the world. He had the "capacity to surprise," as former Senate leader and Reagan adviser Howard Baker said, especially in his dealings with Gorbachev. And he was just so damn funny - I laughed out loud reading some of his famous quips. Kinda makes our current president seem small, but living up to Reagan is probably too much for almost any politician in this age of deep polarization and new transnational threats.

----Attorney Seth Farber, of the liberal The Talking Dog blog, in a post titled "Mourning in America" says "Over the course of time, though I never voted for him, I came to respect our 40th President a great deal. To his credit, he and Nancy Reagan never really liked the Bushes. At 93, he lived the longest of any man ever to hold the presidency, and he was the oldest man ever to hold the office. "

--Attorney Paul Mirengoff of Powerline writes:

It's difficult for those who weren't politically conscious by 1980 to understand how different it felt to be an American that year compared to eight years later. That profound difference was experienced not just by Reagan's admirers, but also by those like me who, during his tenure, viewed him more ambiguously. We could try to debate how much credit Reagan deserved, but the triumph and transformation of those years was indisputable.

--In an extensive post, Staunch Moderate Todd Kennedy argues that although he was likeable, Reagan ushered in a more brutal era of politics with more aggressive campaigns, a greater alliance on polling, and increased selling of politicos as if they were detergents. One small quote:

When we send people to congress or to the office of the presidency we are not purchasing a brand of detergent. Political selection must never, ever again be diluted into the emotional and the conceptual devoid of the factual and the specific. Let’s hope that we are evolving past a period of confidence games to an era of more classic democracy where policy is constructed, and it’s execution overseen by the people, not just confirmed because we think we know and like the guy. Let us leave the theatre and move towards reclamation of our duty as citizens in a democracy.

--Robert Prather in Insults Unpunished has a superb long post ending:

Perhaps the moment that cemented my affection for him was the Challenger disaster. I would be graduating from high school in a few months and knew full well what was going on in the world. Again, in a moment of crisis, he was able to talk to the American people in a way that acknowledged the tragedy but allowed us to keep moving forward. As he said, they “slipped the surly bonds of earth to touch the face of God”. Today he did the same. Thank you, Mr. President. You won’t be forgotten.

--Oxblog's Josh Chafetz has some great links to reaction to Reagan's death plus a great 1999 William F. Buckley quote on Reagan.

--Centerfield's Todd Pearson:" didn't agree with many of his policies, but I think he was the right man at the right time for the country."

--Carla from Preemptive Karma:

As a political liberal, I disagree with many of Reagan's policies. I also disagree strongly with those on the right who seek to canonize Reagan...to whitewash his record and to keep the whole truth of his life and his Presidency from being told.

I believe that Reagan will be remembered first as "The Great Communicator". I think he would want that most of all. Reagan was a man who, like President Bill Clinton, charmed his way into office and even managed to charm his most vehement foes. I hope that in a few years that it will finally be okay to remember Reagan as a whole...and not just the parts that come across as positive. He presided over a complex, difficult and great time for the US. His life and his Presidency should be remembered in that way as well.

--And Lee at Right Thinking has one of the most eloquent posts which includes this:

Maybe it's because I lost my father recently, but I have been quite upset by Reagan's passing today. He was a larger-then-life figure, and a personal hero not only to me but to countless other people. He was our last truly great president. He was the first president I really remember, and during my teenage years he exemplified everything that I currently love about America.

I think that's one of the reasons that this has affected me so deeply—