British intelligence has reestablished links with Syrian intelligence at the highest level on terrorism issues and other matters after a visit by Foreign Minister David Miliband. “Mr Miliband's visit, the first by a British foreign secretary for seven years, was touted as an opportunity to test Syria's willingness to engage with the West, lifting it out of its current isolation,” the London Times reported. “Washington has long insisted on isolating Syria but with a change of administration - and attitude - looming, Britain and France are leading efforts to lure Damascus out of the solitude it has found itself…”

Britain has rewarded Syria with diplomatic talks and the exchange of intelligence information, despite the fact that Syria is still a state sponsor of terror and has refused to denounce and turn in terrorists openly operating on its soil. Hezbollah has long been based in Damascus; Imad Mugniyah, the artitect of the 1983 bombings that killed more than 200 U.S. Marines in Beirut, was killed in a car bombing last February. Mugniyah had a home a in an upscale neighborhood in Damascus. Khaled Mashal, the leader of Hamas, is also based out of Damascus.

Syria is strongly believed to be behind multiple terror attacks inside neighboring Lebanon, including the February 2005 bombing that killed former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and 21 others. Syria has also turned a blind eye to, and in some cases even aided, Al Qaeda in Iraq and other Sunni insurgent groups operating on its soil. Just last month, U.S. special operations forces conducted a cross-border raid into western Syria and killed Abu Ghazwan, the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq’s network that pushed foreigner fighters into Iraq.

Syria has never paid a price for its sponsorship of multiple terrorist outfits operating on its soil, and likely never will.

The media has been noting, with some distaste at the paranoia of backwoods Americans, that the Obama win has triggered an uptick in gun sales:

But whatever the reason, gun dealers in red and blue states alike say they've never seen anything like the run on weaponry they've been experiencing since Election Day— surpassing even the panic buying in the days after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

"People are terrified of losing their right to protect themselves," said DeWayne Irwin, owner of Cheaper Than Dirt, a large gun store in Ft. Worth. "The volume is 10 times what we ever expected. It started with assault rifles, but at this point people are buying ammunition, high-capacity magazines, Glocks—it's all flying off the shelf. With the economy the way it is, people are worried about instability. They are scared of civil unrest."

But with the unprecedented scrutiny of lawful firearms for applicants to the Obama administration, who could blame them for thinking the guy may be a bit unfair to gun owners?

Tucked in at the end of the questionnaire and listed under “Miscellaneous,” it reads: “Do you or any members of your immediate family own a gun? If so, provide complete ownership and registration information. Has the registration ever lapsed? Please also describe how and by whom it is used and whether it has been the cause of any personal injuries or property damage.”

Paul Light, professor of public service at New York University, said there was no such question for potential appointees when President George W. Bush took office in 2000.

“It kind of sticks out there like a sore thumb,” Light said.

He expressed uncertainty over why it was included but surmised it was out of an abundance of caution, a desire to avoid the spectacle of a Cabinet-level or other high-ranking appointee who is discovered to have an unregistered handgun at home.

Now, it appears Obama's AG pick, Eric Holder, held plenty of unfriendly ideas about gun ownership during his time as Deputy AG, and filed a brief in support of the D.C. handgun ban in the Heller case:

As Deputy Attorney General, Holder was a strong supporter of restrictive gun control. He advocated federal licensing of handgun owners, a three day waiting period on handgun sales, rationing handgun sales to no more than one per month, banning possession of handguns and so-called "assault weapons" (cosmetically incorrect guns) by anyone under age of 21, a gun show restriction bill that would have given the federal government the power to shut down all gun shows, national gun registration, and mandatory prison sentences for trivial offenses (e.g., giving your son an heirloom handgun for Christmas, if he were two weeks shy of his 21st birthday). He also promoted the factoid that "Every day that goes by, about 12, 13 more children in this country die from gun violence"--a statistic is true only if one counts 18-year-old gangsters who shoot each other as "children."(Sources: Holder testimony before House Judiciary Committee, Subcommitee on Crime, May 27,1999; Holder Weekly Briefing, May 20, 2000. One of the bills that Holder endorsed is detailed in my 1999 Issue Paper "Unfair and Unconstitutional.")

After 9/11, he penned a Washington Post op-ed, "Keeping Guns Away From Terrorists" arguing that a new law should give "the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms a record of every firearm sale." He also stated that prospective gun buyers should be checked against the secret "watch lists" compiled by various government entities. (In an Issue Paper on the watch list proposal, I quote a FBI spokesman stating that there is no cause to deny gun ownership to someone simply because she is on the FBI list.)

Happy gun shopping, folks, just in time to catch all the Black Thursday sales on ammo. Nothin' says lovin' like a stocking full of Winchester.

Madam Secretary:

Hillary Rodham Clinton has decided to give up her Senate seat and accept the position of secretary of state, making her the public face around the world for the administration of the man who beat her for the Democratic presidential nomination, two confidants said Friday.

Mrs. Clinton came to her decision after additional discussion with President-elect Barack Obama about the nature of her role and his plans for foreign policy, said one of the confidants, who insisted on anonymity to discuss the situation. Mr. Obama’s office told reporters Thursday that the nomination is “on track” but Clinton associates only confirmed Friday afternoon that she has decided.

“She’s ready,” said the confidant. Mrs. Clinton was reassured after talking again with Mr. Obama because their first meeting in Chicago last week “was so general,” the confidant said. The purpose of the follow-up talk, he added, was not to extract particular concessions but “just getting comfortable” with the idea of working together.

Let the games begin.

Presumably this is the first of many commemorative Metro cards to be issued by the DC transit system:

I can't wait to buy my 'Jindal/Palin' metro card four years from now.

Another Palin Rorschach test. Watch the video and see if you're from real America or fake America. As a real American, it's clear to me that these turkeys had it coming, and, personally, I admire a woman who can keep her wits about her even in the face of such horrific violence. In retrospect, they might have slaughtered animals during the Couric interview just to keep things on an even keel.

Max Blumenthal talks with the daughter of Malcolm X about the Zawahiri tape and Obama's election victory::

MB: Do you think your father would have been surprised by the level of white support for a black candidate like Obama, especially in the South?

MS: No, not at all. He had equivalent support as well.

MB: He had equivalent support from white people?

MS: Yeah. Not all white people are bad. He was not a racist, unlike what the white racist media would say. He had a global outlook just like Barack and Michelle.

Blumenthal says that when he explained the Zawahiri tape to Ms. Shabazz, who had not yet seen it, she "reacted angrily, immediately comparing the Al Qaeda figure to Louis Farrakhan, the Nation of Islam chieftain who was an avowed enemy of her father and has admitted he “may have been complicit” in inciting his murder." Of course Farrakhan endorsed Obama, and was good friends with Rev. Wright, or perhaps that was all a concoction of the white racist media. Read it all here.

The Pakistani military's reaction to the unmanned U.S. Predator airstrikes in its northwest would be funny were it not that al Qaeda is plotting their next attack on the West from there. Supposedly outraged over the U.S. violations of its sovereignty, the Army has conducted exercises to shoot down the Predators.

"The elements of Army Air Defense demonstrated their shooting skills by targeting the drones flying at different altitudes," the military said in a statement.

Air defense commander Lieutenant-General Ashraf Saleem praised the "precision and agility" of the gunners.

The exercises "at a desert range near the city of Muzaffargarh in the central Pubjab province," far from the border areas where the U.S. Predators are ranging.

Here's a suggestion: Deploy the anti-aircraft batteries in Wana in South Waziristan and Miramshah in North Waziristan. The vast majority of the U.S. strikes take place in these towns. This happens for good reason: the Haqqani family and Taliban forces under Baitullah Mehsud, Mullah Nazir, Hafiz Gul Bahadar, and a host of other minor Taliban leaders and their al Qaeda allies openly operate in these areas.

While the Pakistani Army is at it, try deploying ground forces along with the air defense units and take down these networks. If they really want the airstrikes to stop, that is the best solution.

I guess, technically, he's neither a senator nor the president at the moment, but that didn't stop him from negotiating for an auto bailout during his private meeting with Bush, and leaking his version of the details.

Then, he told "60 Minutes" he'd like to "see how this thing plays itself out," before offering an apparent endorsement of a bailout with strings attached:

For the auto industry to completely collapse would be a disaster in this kind of environment, not just for individual families but the repercussions across the economy would be dire. So it's my belief that we need to provide assistance to the auto industry. But I think that it can't be a blank check.

So my hope is that over the course of the next week, between the White House and Congress, the discussions are shaped around providing assistance but making sure that that assistance is conditioned on labor, management, suppliers, lenders, all the stakeholders coming together with a plan what does a sustainable U.S. auto industry look like? So that we are creating a bridge loan to somewhere as opposed to a bridge loan to nowhere. And that's, I think, what you haven't yet seen. That's something that I think we're gonna have to come up with.

But as public opinion begins to stack up against the position Obama momentarily staked out, he characteristically withdraws:

President-elect Barack Obama is staying out of the congressional fight over bailing out the U.S. auto industry, despite his previous statements urging help for Detroit's struggling Big Three, a leading Senate Democrat said Wednesday.

"I can tell you flat out there will be no endorsement [by Mr. Obama] prior to January 20," said Senate Banking Committee Chariman Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut a day after his committee heard a combined appeal for billions of dollars in taxpayer help from the heads of General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co, and Chrysler LLC.

Around about January 21, I'm sure we'll get a convoluted endorsement of whatever the White House and Congress did (or didn't) cobble together as this thing "played itself out." He'll sprinkle it with stern words for the auto CEOs who shamed Main Street by flying their Wall-Street-style jets to Washington, and an assurance that was "consistently for" whatever passes, until such a time as it doesn't work, at which point he'll say he "always said" he was for the opposite, and no one heeded his admonitions, despite the fact that he's the most powerful Democrat in the nation.

The man doesn't want to have a position. Positions are just political liabilities, whereas cop-outs can be cajoled into charmingly nuanced and inscrutable interview answers.

Obama leadership: "Well, let's see how this thing plays itself out."

It can work for auto bailouts. It ain't gonna work with Iran.

Tim Mahoney, the man who replaced scandal-ridden Mark Foley in 2006 before being defeated in the wake of his own sex scandal, is not only Congressionally seatless, but shameless as well:

Unbowed by the sex scandal that led to his disgrace and reelection defeat, Congressman Tim Mahoney (D-Fla.) showed up today at a hearing of the House Financial Services Committee where Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke addressed problems with the $700 billion bailout program.

Current and former aides to Mahoney told ABCNews.com that both his own staff and Committee staff strongly urged Mahoney not to appear but, when he insisted, said he should not ask questions.

"Someone didn't get the memo that he wasn't re-elected," said one of Mahoney's staff members, who spoke to ABCNews.com on the condition of anonymity.

He also requested a private meeting with Barney Frank to offer his advice on how to deal with the economy.

Mukasey was about 20 minutes into a speech to the Federalist Society when he began to slur his words and shake slightly before collapsing slowly, into the arms of several nearby men (probably from his security detail) who had rushed to assist him.

He lost consciousness briefly, but regained it before leaving for treatment George Washington University, and never transferred power to his deputy. He is reportedly "alert and conversant," which is good news considering the stroke-like look of the incident. His spokespeople asked if it was a stroke, but offered no comment.

Mukasey was appointed by President Bush in 2007 to replace the beleaguered Alberto Gonzales, and was confirmed 53-40, after some controversy about his answer on waterboarding, an aggressive interrogation technique he refused to designate as "torture" and declare illegal. Presidential candidates Clinton, McCain, Dodd, Biden and Obama were not around to vote.

As is its wont, the Left blogosphere went to work wishing ill upon the imperiled official, although their behavior has improved somewhat since conservative blogs and O'Reilly started pointing out every death wish thread they concoct. At Daily Kos, the diary writer and one commenter were mocked for offering prayers for Mukasey, "The equivalent of urinating on a cold sparkplug...How have your prayers been working out for you over the past eight years? Got a constitution? A rule of law? Got a decent job?" This guy "questions the timing."
Democratic Underground offers more mockery for prayer and calls him a "3rd reich henchman."

Feel the hope. Keep Mukasey in your prayers. It's good news that paramedics were quick, and he sounds like he's doing fairly well.

Out on the tour circuit for his new book, "How Mitt Romney, the Fake Conservative, Almost Bought the Republican Primary With His Big CEO Money" "Do the Right Thing," Mike Huckabee took a break from bashing former rival Mitt Romney to take a few whacks at a fellow governor he's never had to compete with:

“What John McCain did for her was to give her the capacity to sort of leapfrog over the process and get right to the center stage,” he said at a breakfast with reporters this morning. “By naming her (his running mate) he was able to put her in a position where she did have to go through the bruising process of the primaries. Many of us had been out there for 15 months … she walks into the hot spotlight and she’s a blank slate nobody knows so Republicans are fired up.”

Oh, Huck's just mad that moose-hunting super-mom who sells planes on eBay trumps Jared from Subway with a penchant for federal workplace smoking bans.

“She didn’t have to go through any the debates, she didn’t have to go through the primaries, she didn’t have to have people pick her or pick someone else against her. State parties did not have to divide from one to 12 ways over her. So it was a remarkable ability for her to come in at a level that is an extraordinary benefit to her.”...

“So will she be part of the future? Of course she will, for the simple reason that she is one of the few people who played at that stage who didn’t have to get bloodied in the process.”

When she was beaten up, he added, it was by “people Republicans don’t like,” such as Democrats and the media.

Wow, this guy's so petty, you could put him in the 43 car and call him the King. Huckabee's very good performance during his primary "bloodying," such that it was, has served his profile and career fairly well. Less whining would serve him even better.

I was never a huge Romney fan during the primaries, but I found the open distaste for him among his opponents somewhat hyperbolic, and thought he was unfairly maligned for simply taking them to task on their records. A comparison of Huckabee's and Romney's preliminary 2012 positioning indicates Romney may have been the bigger man in that dispute all along. Huckabee's a great politician, but he's throwing up barriers between himself and the good will of the average voter right now.

Romney has been penning helpful op-eds on the economy and the auto bailout (though I should note that he loses points for his politically convenient pro-intervention position while campaigning in Michigan and the flip required for his new position). Romney has declined to trade paint with his opponent thus far.

Asked to respond (to Huckabee's book), Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom said Huckabee was acting small.

“This type of pettiness is beneath Mike Huckabee,” Fehrnstrom. “If we’re going to move the party forward, we need to offer more than personal recriminations. Unfortunately, in this book, Mike Huckabee is consumed with presumed slights, and he seems more interested in settling scores than in bringing people together.”

I think they accidentally put self-absorption in the water down in Hope, Ark. instead of fluoride.

This morning Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell and Senator Norm Coleman conducted a conference call to review the latest information on the Coleman/Franken Senate race in Minnesota. Here are the highlights of the call:

The recount began yesterday. Counties will continue their work over the next week. Some may not conclude until after Thanksgiving. But a lot more information will be available after today. Coleman noted that Minnesota has 4130 precincts. 4112 have newer, more accurate optical screener machines. In all of the precincts where the optical screener machines were in place, very small to no changes occurred in the early recount (2-5 votes swings some for Coleman, or the same number for Franken, but no real appreciable net changes).

Minnesota, also has 18 precincts with older, less accurate machines. In the counts taken in those areas yesterday, Coleman lost a net 28 additional votes.

Coleman estimates that as of now he’s ahead by roughly 170 votes. Many of the big Republican counties have not yet conducted their recounts, according to Coleman. The Minnesota senator sounded upbeat about victory at the end of the day and concluded with a fitting hockey metaphor: “We’re on the ice and its time to put the puck in the net."

Quin Hillyer profiles congressional candidate Joseph Cao, who faces 'Dollar Bill' Jefferson in a Louisiana runoff on December 6. Cao sounds like a singular person -- a Vietnamese immigrant who fled to the United States before the fall of Saigon, eventually became a Jesuit novice, then elected to forego the priesthood in favor of the law and charity work. It's hard to do justice to Cao's biography in an excerpt, so I encourage you to read the whole piece.

Cao eventually elected to run against scandal-tarred Bill Jefferson:

Undaunted, Cao looked at the developing scandal around Rep. Jefferson, and his background in philosophy kicked in. Forget the 66% to 11% (23% "other") Democrat-to-Republican edge in the Second District. Forget the 62% black voter registration (Jefferson is black). "Clearly," said Cao campaign treasurer Murray Nelson, himself the loser last year of a state legislative race and recently the statewide executive director of McCain's Louisiana campaign, "this is a real David going up against a Goliath, but he's a guy who actually taught ethics going against a guy facing multiple indictments. I think he's just offended [by Jefferson's ethics], and he's doing this race for the right reasons, not for himself."

"I want to bring reform back to the Second District," Cao told me. Again, simple as that.

Cao is clearly an underdog, but at least one local analyst gives him an excellent chance. Jefferson prevailed in a December runoff in 2006 with 57 percent of the vote, a substantial drop from his prior re-election campaigns. Two years later, there are likely to be more Louisiana voters who are tired of the headlines about Jefferson's ongoing corruption case. And this year, they have an alternative with a compelling contrast and personal background.

Can an underdog like Cao win against an ethically-challenged Member of Congress who's held his seat for ages? Ask Ted Stevens.

Sen. Ted Stevens gives his last speech from the floor, after 40 years and seven felonies. Audio and summary available, here.

He has some good words for the Alaska pipeline and still doesn't take kindly to radical environmentalists who prevent Alaska tapping its natural resources.

"To hell with politics, just do what's right for Alaska," has been his motto these many years, he said.

Update: In other Alaska news, Begich enters the Senate with a flourish:

Mark Begich settled in Wednesday as Alaska's newest U.S. senator-elect by doing what almost no other Democrat in Washington would ever do: declaring his support for oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

But this is Alaska, where Democrats are of a different stripe, Begich reminded those who haven't seen many national-level Democrats from Alaska lately.

"I think anyone who knows me knows I'm a different Democrat. I'm from Alaska. I'm a believer, a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment, a supporter of drilling in ANWR. Alaskans are very liberal [in their belief that] government should not interfere in their personal life," he said.

"I'm definitely different from a New York Democrat -- you can bank on that," he said in response to a question from the New York Times.

Roll Call reports that Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid is giving up on a potential bailout for the Big 3 automakers -- at least for now:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said on Wednesday that they would try to work out a Thursday vote on a House measure that would extend unemployment insurance, a move that would signal the end of the week’s lame-duck session.

Reid filed for cloture Wednesday evening on a bill that would extend unemployment insurance benefits after he failed to get unanimous consent for an economic stimulus package that included infrastructure funding, state aid for Medicaid, and a loan for the ailing automotive industry...

The cloture petition guarantees there will be a vote on unemployment benefits by Friday, but Reid and McConnell are hoping to move that vote up by a day, and they said they would go back to their colleagues to work out an agreement that would allow a Thursday vote.

If the Senate succeeds, there is no reason for the House to come back to town because it has already passed the measure.

Harry Reid will call Congress back into session in December to try again, but if the Bush administration won't agree to a bailout, then Democrats in Congress will simply wait until January 20, and hope some car manufacturers are still around to benefit from their largesse.

It's been clear for a while that Democrats in Washington don't want to save the Big 3 per se, they want to run a car company. A look at the terms of Barney Frank's bailout bill shows that his idea is to put Barack Obama's Cabinet in charge of the automakers. This will merely prolong the death of the Big 3 rather than requiring them to undergo the drastic changes needed to survive.

A friend at the State Department tells of the elation that greeted Barack Obama's election and the subsequent unease at the rumors that Hillary Clinton would be appointed Secretary of State:

"That's not the change they voted for."

The appointment is not yet a done deal according to the Times, but if it does go through -- there's more good news: the current "tension could foreshadow a complex relationship [between Clinton and Obama] burdened by suspicion and enmity." Apparently that would be new suspicion and enmity in addition to all the suspicion and enmity leftover from Obama's stealing of the nomination.

As noted Monday, elements within Pakistan's dysfunctional Inter-Services Intelligence agency (or ISI) continue to support the Taliban and al Qaeda inside Afghanistan. The ISI also supports the extremists inside Pakistan. U.S. intelligence and the leadership of the ISI plan to dismantle the extremist support network inside Pakistan, according to the Asia Times. The main targets are former ISI chief Lieutenant General Hamid Gul, who is considered the father of the Taliban, and Squadron Leader Khalid Khawaja, a retired ISI official:

High-level meetings between US intelligence and Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) have already been held at different levels to devise plans to cripple the support systems of the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Pakistan.

Two prominent names came under discussion at these meetings: retired Lieutenant-General Hamid Gul and a former ISI official, retired Squadron Leader Khalid Khawaja.

Gul, a former head of the ISI, is suspected of providing political and moral support to the Taliban-led resistance in Afghanistan. Last year, former premier Benazir Bhutto named him as a suspect for the October 18 attack on her life in Karachi. She was subsequently assassinated in December.

Khawaja was the first person in the country to assist the displaced families of Arab fighters who fled to Pakistan after the US invasion of Afghanistan in 2001. He fought their cases in court, arranged temporary housing for them and assisted them in departing to their countries. Khawaja is active in the cause of missing people (those detained without trial for years) and wants to register cases against the former chief of army staff and president, General Pervez Musharraf, and his military aides for abuses allegedly committed during their eight years in power.

While the removal of Gul and Khawaja, two senior former ISI officials who have been eyeballs deep in extremist activates in Afghanistan and Pakistan, would likely help the effort, the idea of working with the ISI to take them down is fraught with risk. The ISI remains riddled with officers with competing loyalties. The ISI purges conducted by the Musharraf regime and the Zardari goverment largely targeted the high-level officers in bed with the Taliban. Lower-level officers, many loyal to Gul, Khawaja, and others are still in the ranks, and will sabotage these efforts.

The ISI-Taliban-al Qaeda nexus is quite capable of killing those who oppose them. Just yesterday, Major General Amir Faisal Alvi, the former commander of the Special Services Group, was gunned down while driving to Islamabad.

The Special Services Group is Pakistan's elite counterterrorism force that conducted the assault on the Taliban Red Mosque in Islamabad in July 2007. While police are unsure if this attack was an assassination or a criminal act, good money is on the latter.

The Taliban and their allies have pulled off several high profile assassinations, including the murder of Pakistan's Surgeon General in Rawalpindi, the supposed secure garrison city adjacent to Islamabad. Another suicide strike in Rawalpindi occurred right outside the military general headquarters; the target was a bus carrying ISI personnel. There have been numerous attacks like these throughout Pakistan, in areas only those with assistance from the ISI or the military should be able to access.

Yesterday the Washington Post listed General Jim Jones as a contender for the job of national security adviser in an Obama administration -- a rumor that had circulated for some time already. Jones was floated as a potential running mate for Obama early in the general election (this blog discussed the possibility of Jones serving as VP on either ticket back in October '07), and during the final presidential debate Obama listed Jones as one of the people he consults with (as opposed to William Ayers):

Let me tell you who I associate with. On economic policy, I associate with Warren Buffett and former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker. If I'm interested in figuring out my foreign policy, I associate myself with my running mate, Joe Biden or with Dick Lugar, the Republican ranking member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, or General Jim Jones, the former supreme allied commander of NATO.

A number of Republicans I spoke with recently believe that Jones, the former Supreme Allied Commander Europe, will indeed get the job. Perhaps Republicans aren't the best source for rumint on the Obama transition, but Jones has deep ties to Republican figures in this town as well -- none more so than John McCain.

Jones opposed the surge, but he's as hawkish a pick as one could hope for from Obama. And of course his primary qualification is that he is not Susan Rice.

Segments of the conservative movement have been questioning Michael Steele's commitment to conservative values, particularly social issues, posing the first obstacle in his bid for RNC chair.

At issue is his part in founding the centrist, pro-choice Republican Leadership Council with Christine Todd Whitman and John Danforth, whose mission includes embracing fiscally conservative candidates with diverse social views. But Steele told the Washington Times this week that he is no longer on the RLC's board, having left in spring of this year when the organization began getting involved in Republican primaries (audio, here):

"I shouldn't be listed on their site because I'm not on their board anymore...I have a fundamental issue with organizations getting involved in primaries, and the organization was endorsing candidates in primaries, which I am fundamentally opposed to...I get what you're trying to do, but if you do it in a way that will alienate people, then it's not ultimately to the benefit of the party...I can't be a part of that."

RLC's mission, as stated by the group's website:

Inspired by a drive to get back to the fundamentals of the Republican Party, Senator John Danforth, Lt. Governor Michael Steele, and Governor Christine Todd Whitman created the political organization the Republican Leadership Council, which advocates for the historic Republican principles of liberty, individual responsibility, and personal freedom.

RLC-PAC's vision is a Republican Party that is unified by the basic tenets of fiscal responsibility and personal freedom, but that allows for diverse opinions on social issues by its members.

If you're having a "one of these things is not like the other" moment in reading that line-up, you're not alone. Whitman is constantly and openly at odds with social conservatives in the party and Danforth has become recently critical of the influence religious conservatives have, writing in 2005, "Republicans have transformed our party into the political arm of conservative Christians."

Steele on the other hand, despite running in a the moderate state of Maryland, has been clear about his personal pro-life views, was an energizing underdog Senate candidate in 2006, and rallied much of the base to his side in an unsuccessful campaign for RNC the same year. He supports overturning Roe v. Wade eventually and more politically attainable pro-life measures in the interim, and has said that he would keep the overturning as part of the Republican Party platform. He's against embryonic stem-cell research funding, but he sounds more skeptical about something like a Federal Marriage Amendment, which given the polling trends on gay marriage, is a perfectly reasonable political position.

In addition, Steele is a devout Catholic who spent three years in seminary preparing to be a priest. One wonders if he'd actually have to be the Pope to satisfy some of the critics as to his pro-life credentials.

Let me be straight-forward in a way I think Michael Steele would appreciate: A black Catholic who grew up in D.C. and lives in Prince George's County becomes a Republican, overcoming social pressure and withstanding abuse, because he believes in conservative ideas and the way they can serve all communities, not because he wishes to be a squishy moderate beloved of the Beltway press. The knock on his pro-life credentials has always struck me as silly, and his leaving the RLC should quiet that line of attack.

God speed, Norm Coleman. It's gonna be a rough recount.

I was listening to the local pop station this morning, and the three usually inane DJs were enraged by the auto bailout story, particularly the part of the story that had even Congressmen marveling at Detroit's tinnest political ears:

After hearing that the chief executives of General Motors, Ford and Chrysler flew here in their costly private jets, Ackerman questioned whether they would use the billions of dollars they are seeking to fix underlying management problems that landed them in a financial mess in the first place.

"There's a delicious irony in seeing private luxury jets flying into Washington, D.C., and people coming off of them with tin cups in their hand, saying that they're going to be trimming down and streamlining their businesses," said Ackerman at a Financial Services Committee hearing yesterday.

"Couldn't you have downgraded to first class or something, or jet-pooled...to get here?" Ackerman asked. "It's almost like seeing a guy show up at the soup kitchen in high hat and tuxedo."

ABC's evening newscast went with the story last night, going so far as to look up coinciding flights on Expedia, from Detroit to Dulles. There were 12 of them, starting at about $200.

The last Rasmussen poll showed more than 40 percent opposed an auto bailout, with 70 percent worried the government would run out of money if it kept traveling this road. Now that the jet story has reached "Fey effect" levels of pop-culture exposure, it may very well keep Congress from rewarding the Big Three's jet-setting paupers with our money.

I'm with Mitt. Let 'em go.

A video retrospective on "Uncle Ted" Stevens, if you dare.

My personal favorite moment isn't in there, when Ted took the floor of the Senate, his Incredible Hulk tie shaking against his chest with barely contained rage, to declare the Bridge to Nowhere his hill to die on.

"I will put the Senate on notice -- and I don't kid people -- if the Senate decides to discriminate against our state and take money only from our state, I will resign from this body," Mr. Stevens vowed.

For the record, I think he's been unfairly maligned for his notorious explanation of the Internet as a "series of tubes," but much of the other maligning has been warranted.

U.S. Special Operations Forces / the CIA struck yet again in Pakistan’s northwest. A senior al Qaeda leader named Abdullah Azzam al Saudi is thought to have been killed in the unmanned Predator/Reaper airstrike, but this has not been confirmed by U.S. intelligence. Azzam serves as a liaison between al Qaeda and the Taliban, and also is involved with al Qaeda’s “external operations” – meaning they network that plots attacks on the West.

Today’s attack isn’t extraordinary because it killed an al Qaeda or occurred inside Pakistani territory: Five senior al Qaeda leaders have been confirmed killed during 30 strikes and incursions into Pakistan’s tribal areas this year. The strike is unusual because it took place in the Bannu Frontier Region, outside of Pakistan’s seven Taliban-controlled tribal areas. The rest of the 29 U.S. strikes inside Pakistan this year took place in the tribal areas of Bajaur and North and South Waziristan.

So is this meaningful? Yes. Most of the reports from Pakistan focus on al Qaeda and the Taliban’s presence in the tribal areas. But for years the groups have been expanding into what are called the “settled districts” of the Northwest Frontier Province. Al Qaeda and Taliban safe houses and camps, and their area of influence extend far outside of the tribal areas. Is the United States planning to strike deep inside Pakistan?

The Pakistani government has weakly protested the U.S. strikes. Earlier this week the Washington Post claimed the attacks were occurring with the approval of the Pakistani government. Will the Pakistani government accept U.S. strikes beyond the tribal areas?

Russia's plan for the new Iskander theater ballistic missile doesn't stop with their proposed Kaliningrad deployment. Aviation Week reports that once domestic requirements are met, Russia may export the weapon to Syria, India, and the UAE -- to start. Algeria, Belarus, Kuwait, and Vietnam have also expressed interest in the SCUD replacement, though Russia claims to be working on an "Echo" variant of the rocket for export that reduces the Iskander's range from 400km to appx. 280km.

Russia's export of its latest and hottest weapon system isn't exactly news -- they've been supplying the world with military hardware for decades. What is interesting is the potential for another East v. West technological showdown in the Israeli-Syria theater. Israel is currently deploying a robust rocket and missile shield that is designed to knock out everything from short range Hezbollah rocket attacks all the way up to an Iranian Shahab-III ballistic missile laydown. That shield will include top-of-the-line American missile defense systems such as the Patriot PAC-3, the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD), and a highly-sensitive new x-band radar, as well as Israeli weapon systems like David's Sling and Iron Dome.

As with the Six Day War, the October War, and the invasion/occupation of southern Lebanon, Israeli and Syria may once again test the mettle of US vs. Russian weapon platforms in the near future. Considering the frightening power of ballistic missiles one would hope that America's defense technology again proves superior.

If nothing else, Ivan's callous proliferation of these heavy shooters should be enough to cast doubt on any existing plan to cut missile defense from the budget.

[Photo: Aviation Week]

The Financial Times reports that Barack Obama is “negotiating terms” under which Robert Gates will remain as Secretary of Defense in an Obama administration. It was widely assumed that Gates would keep his job regardless of who won the election and while I’ve heard conflicting reports about whether he wants to stay, his success means he will almost certainly be offered the choice. If McCain had won, Gates merely would have been rewarded for his competence -- a rare quality in the Bush administration but one that was increasingly visible in the management of the war. For Obama, Gates could be of far greater value.

Barack Obama's problem is that he promised a withdrawal from Iraq that is neither prudent nor possible. More than that, withdrawal at the pace Obama demanded during the primary is no longer warranted: it’s clear we’re winning the war. It was good politics to promise a withdrawal during the primary, and it was something of a wash during the general election, but it would be a complete disaster to deliver on that promise as President. Perhaps the most serious foreign policy mistake Obama made during the election was to support unconditional meetings with our enemies (bad politics and bad policy), and he’s since made fairly clear that he has no intention of following through on that promise. Why should his 16 month timeline for withdrawal from Iraq be any different?

The new Iraqi deadline for the withdrawal of U.S. forces is 32 months, rather than the 16 Obama had promised during the primary, and it may well be possible to safely remove the bulk of U.S. forces by the end of 2011. What Gates can do is provide Obama with the cover to remove troops more quickly. Gates will be one of only a few voices who can credibly say that the facts on the ground allow for Obama's timeline -- that Obama isn’t threatening the gains made by U.S. troops. But Gates can also help provide Obama with the cover to move a little more slowly than his supporters might like -- another voice cautioning, from the inside, against too quick a draw-down.

There’s almost no one who would object to keeping Gates at the helm. As Harry Reid approvingly noted, Gates isn’t even a registered Republican. The usual suspects will whine about how this isn't the change they were promised, or that keeping Gates furthers the perception that Democrats are soft on defense -- in this case too soft for even Obama to find one up to the task of secretary -- but that's all background noise.

Pardoning Lieberman, reaching out to Clinton, and keeping on Gates -- perhaps things won't be as bad as we feared.

He may get the chance to become the underwhelming, charmless Secretary of the Interior, if he is disappointed in his quest to become the underwhelming, charmless Secretary of State.

National Journal reports that Barack Obama has selected CBO Director Peter Orszag to head up the Office of Management and Budget. Orszag is widely respected on both sides of the aisle for his professionalism and his command of budgetary detail. The Orszag appointment also suggests that one of Barack Obama's priorities as president will be controlling health care costs, which Orszag has consistently identified as essential to getting the government's fiscal house in order.

Multiple reports suggest that leading Democratic senators will make health care one of the first issues taken up in the Obama presidency. The Washington Post reported several days ago that the CBO, under Orszag's direction, is preparing a report on cost-saving health care measures. And that report is attracting the interest of one of the last liberal lions:

Aides have refused to indicate what direction Kennedy will pursue but have made it clear he does not intend to cede his longtime leadership role on health policy. They expect to get valuable assistance next month when Peter Orszag, head of the independent Congressional Budget Office, releases a two-volume report on the need for health reform and a set of policy actions that could achieve measurable savings.

Orszag's pet issue is controlling health care costs; his work is being cited by Kennedy aides as they prepare to introduce Kennedy's health care reform blueprint. Kennedy is the Senate's most influential Democrat on health care. Does all this mean that Obama will support Kennedy's approach?

Rasmussen released results of a new national poll yesterday showing Americans put more faith in the concept of free market capitalism than they do in our national leaders’ ability to apply it. According to the poll:

Forty-four percent (44%) of Americans agree with President Bush’s declaration last week that "free-market capitalism is far more than an economic theory. It is the engine of social mobility - the highway to the American Dream."

The same survey found that just 22 percent disagree with that sentiment, while 33 percent are undecided.

As a pollster I know it’s sometimes hard to separate the “message” from the “messenger.” So in this case, given President Bush’s low approval ratings and the economic meltdown over the past two months, I’m surprised the number of free market supporters isn’t even lower.

The news gets worse when voters are asked about their confidence in our national leaders’ ability to handle current economic problems. Republicans as well as Democrats seem equally unsure. Rasmussen writes this:

In a finding rare to Rasmussen Reports’ recent surveys on the economy, there is virtually no partisan divide when voters are asked about their confidence in policymakers. Only 27% of Republicans are somewhat confident in U.S. policymakers, as are just 30% of Democrats. Twenty-one percent (21%) of unaffiliateds agree.

Voters are also pretty cynical when it comes to the economic rescue plan recently passed by Congress:

Adding to this perception is the further finding that 48% of voters think Congress’ passage of a $700-billion economic rescue plan last month was bad for the country. Just 25% think the plan, first proposed by the Bush administration, was good for the country, and 26% are undecided.

Read the full Rasmussen report here.

CNN and AP are both reporting that Stevens fell short in the Alaska Senate race against Democrat Mark Begich (although CNN is only sourcing Begich's campaign at this point, which let's face it, could be the same source AP is using as authoritative.)

The AP is apparently so excited about the Republicans losing another seat that they've lost themselves in the clumsy purple prose of electoral ecstasy:

The crotchety octogenarian built like a birch sapling likes to encourage comparisons with the Incredible Hulk, but he occupies an outsized place in Alaska history.

There may be a recount. Stevens deserves to lose. Coleman doesn't in Minnesota, where his lead has been slip-slidin' away for two weeks even before the recount has begun.

Oh, dear:

She has coruscating intelligence, beauty, style and -- drumroll, please -- a butt. (Yes, you read that right: I'm going to talk about the first lady's butt.)

As I gradually relaxed, as Michelle strode onto more stages and people started focusing on her clothes and presence instead of her patriotism, it dawned on me -- good God, she has a butt! "Obama’s baby (mama) got back," wrote one feminist blogger. "OMG, her butt is humongous!" went a typical comment on one African-American online forum, and while it isn't humongous, per se, it is a solid, round, black, class-A boo-tay. Try as Michelle might to cover it with those Mamie Eisenhower skirts and sheath dresses meant to reassure mainstream voters, the butt would not be denied.

As America fretted about Obama's exoticism and he sought to calm the waters with speeches about unity and common experience, Michelle's body was sending a different message: To hell with biracialism! Compromise, bipartisanship? Don't think so. Here was one clear signifier of blackness that couldn't be tamed, muted or otherwise made invisible. It emerged right before our eyes, in the midst of our growing uncertainty about everything, and we were too bogged down in the daily campaign madness to notice. The one clear predictor of success that the pundits, despite all their fancy maps, charts and holograms, missed completely? Michelle's butt.

We were too bogged down, you see, in the daily madness of discussing issues, arguing talking points, polling voters, and generally conducting the business of electing the next leader of the free world to address the pressing issue of Michelle Obama's rear end. There was a time when a female writer would have relished a female public figure's words being examined instead of her anatomy, but now that we have left behind that provincial trope, we're free to rhetorically and literally leer at the First Lady's behind and debate its social implications. Free at last.

This piece begins with the words, "free at last"— as in Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech, which referenced the reverential, ancient gospel song. "Free at last"— as in the eloquent and efficient phrase used by generations of African Americans to embody the tragedy of slavery, segregation, and America's shame, and the corresponding hope that we could overcome them.

In this case, the phrase is used differently, as in, "Thank God Almighty, we are free from an oppressive history of First Ladies with insufficiently Sir-Mix-a-Lottian figures."

I only wish I could say the piece was tongue-in-cheek, but a) it's not very, and b) that phrase might be inappropriate given the subject matter.