An open letter to the Iowa GOP from Alexander J. Madison and sent out by the Hunter campaign. As one friend describes it, it's "the most conservative statement ever." Enjoy...

Dear Iowegians,

Every presidential election season, your state has the opportunity to help shape the election going forward. Unfortunately, too many times, you have selected a dud during the Iowa Caucuses. In 1976, you picked Gerald Ford, proponent of the ERA and abortion rights, over a very conservative Ronald Reagan. In 1980, you chose a very moderate Bush over Reagan. And twice you picked a milquetoast named Bob Dole. Granted, the choices are sometimes between dud and duddier, but this year is different. This year you have a chance to select a rock-ribbed conservative Reaganite to make up for not choosing the original Reaganite when you had the chance. The name is Duncan Hunter.

Congressman Duncan Hunter is a representative from California's 52nd legislative district. Mr. Hunter put his college career on hold to volunteer with the 173 rd Airborne Rangers to fight the communists in Vietnam. Like Reagan, Hunter believes that war was not only very winnable, but was indeed a "noble cause". And the killing fields that followed our departure from that conflict are a bold testament to their vision over the head-in-the-sand lack of vision (which continues to this day) from the defeatist democrats and RINOs.

Not long ago we learned that the State Department had facilitated arrangements for the New York Philharmonic Orchestra to travel to North Korea. It’s a terrible idea, of course, to reward Kim Jong Il’s bad behavior--indeed, his bad nature--by sending cultural envoys with the blessing of our top diplomats. (See Powerline’s Scott Johnson on the subject here.)

But it would be something just short of disastrous if our top diplomat herself--Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice--were to go along, no? That is just what she is planning to do, according to a report from NBC’s Andrea Mitchell, in an appearance on The Chris Matthews Show. According to Mitchell, whose reporting consistently reflects access to very good sources at the highest levels of our diplomatic bureaucracy, Rice will be going to North Korea with the philharmonic when it travels to the dark nation in February.

George W. Bush included North Korea in the Axis of Evil some six years ago. And he famously told Bob Woodward: "I loathe Kim Jong Il. I’ve got a visceral reaction to this guy because he is starving his people."

But more recently, Bush sent a letter to the man he once derided as a "pygmy," in an effort to get the North Korean leader to made good on his disarmament commitments--a triumph of hope over experience, as Samuel Johnson once said in a different context. Bush was even said to have addressed Kim Jong Il as "Mr. Chairman" in the letter, suggesting a softening of his earlier views.

A letter is one thing. But a cultural exchange featuring America’s top diplomat is quite another.

Will Bush let her go?

Mike Huckabee announced this afternoon that he will not be airing negative ads on Mitt Romney in the closing days of the Republican battle in Iowa. Then, he showed one of those ads to reporters and explained his decision not to air it. (As he spoke, Huckabee was surrounded by placards highlighting his attacks on Romney. See Jonathan Martin's characteristically smart take, here.) According to Martin, Huckabee made the decision not to air the ads shortly before the press conference and by then it was too late to cancel the event.

Hmmmm. It's an old campaign ploy--to share attacks on your opponent with journalists in the hope that they include them in their reporting. The politics of paralipsis again: Here are the negative charges I'm not going to air. The Huckabee camp is probably hoping not only to give life to his attacks on Romney, sort of a political bank shot, but to get credit for staying positive.

But let's assume Huckabee is telling the truth. Why was he even considering running these ads? He promised nearly two weeks ago that he would not run negative ads against Romney and, indeed, said he was betting his campaign on it.

In an email to supporters on December 20, Huckabee wrote:

What is also apparent, as I campaign and talk with voters, is that other Republican candidates in this race have been bombarding Iowans with negative attacks and they are TIRED of it! I believe, in fact I am betting the farm on it, that our commitment to not run negative attacks, will show undecided Iowans a clear contrast in styles and will sway them to our side.

On Friday I covered the interim population estimates recently issued by the Census Bureau, and their implications for the elections of 2012 and beyond. Political consultant Soren Dayton wrote a response at his excellent blog eyeon08, where he threw a dash of cold water on my optimistic assessment.

Dayton does not dispute that many of the states gaining Congressional seats (and hence electoral votes) are currently red states. He points up, however, the importance of where population is added within a state, as well as who's doing the redistricting. Thus, seats gained in Florida, Texas, or Nevada may not turn out to be Republican seats. Similarly he says, it may wind up being Republican seats that are eliminated from blue states.

Dayton concludes:

Indeed, the challenge for the GOP is going to be fighting back against the intra-state trends. In Virginia, southeastern Pennsylvania, and New Jersey, the GOP needs an agenda that is more relevant to the suburbs. In the West and Florida--and nationwide--we need better Hispanic numbers. And in the rust-belt, we need a response to irresponsible Democratic anti-globalization demagoguing...

In conclusion, I think that Brian is right in some sort of static analysis. But the world isn’t static. The Reagan and even Bush coalitions are basically gone. It is very, very dangerous for the GOP to look at 2012 with anything but great apprehension. That’s why we need a candidate at the top of the ticket in 2008 who has something different to offer. And that’s why we need a Congressional party that is willing to substantially address some of our flaws. And I am not seeing it.

His points are well taken--in particular his comments about the importance of who ends up drawing Congressional boundaries. Go read his whole post.

According to the National Conference on State Legislatures, Democrats currently control the state House, Senate, and Governorships in 15 states. Republicans have control in 9. If this were a redistricting year, Republicans would be political targets in the first 15 blue states; Democrats in the 9 red ones.

This demonstrates the importance of the 2010 elections, when 36 states will elect governors and state legislatures. In 18 of the 36 states, governors will be stepping down due to term limits. The 18 (or more) new governors will be the ones who preside over the drawing of new district lines. Thus the public verdict on the next president's first two years in office may have a critical influence on who controls the House of Representatives from 2012 to 2022.

A nascent narrative has developed that suggests Hillary Clinton wasn't really a co-president serving alongside her beloved husband, but in truth performed the more traditional First Lady roles of running pointless goodwill missions and publishing chocolate chip cookie recipes in Parade Magazine. Obviously, the Clinton campaign, reliant as it is on its candidate's purported “experience,” can't take this charge lying down. To rebut this slander, Team Clinton has released a harrowing tale of Hillary's heroism:

(Clinton argued) she risked her life on White House missions in the 1990s, including a hair-raising flight into Bosnia that ended in a "corkscrew" landing and a sprint off the tarmac to dodge snipers.

"I don't remember anyone offering me tea," she quipped. (Aaah, the gallows humor of the remarkably brave!)

The dictum around the Oval Office in the '90s, she added, was: "If a place was too dangerous, too poor or too small, send the first lady."

It turns out that Clinton wasn't quite flying solo into harm's way that day.

She was, in fact, leading a goodwill entourage that included baggy-pants funnyman Sinbad, singer Sheryl Crow and Clinton's daughter, Chelsea, then 15, according to an account of the March 1995 trip in her autobiography "Living History."

As the plane approached the runway, the pilot ordered the Clintons into the armored front of the plane, Clinton writes.

What' not clear is whether Sinbad or Crow were invited to the cockpit or had to brave it out in the unprotected rear.

Upon hearing this remarkable anecdote, assorted questions rush to mind:

1) Does it jeopardize Bill Clinton's legacy that he so cavalierly put his beloved bride in harm's way?

2) What does it say about Hillary that, by her own (admittedly fanciful) telling, she knowingly put her daughter in harm's way, taking a special Mom-and-daughter (and Sinbad) trip to a place that was “too dangerous?”

3) Can America forgive Hillary for jeopardizing the life of national treasure Sheryl Crow?

All of you who have seen The Simpsons movie will immediately recognize what this looks like. It appears to be a near copy of the manure silo for the Simpson family pig that Homer dumped into Lake Springfield. If you all remember, the Lake was already on the verge of ecological meltdown due to excessive pollutants, and all dumping was forbidden. Homer ignored the local ordnance and dumped the bin into the lake because he was on his afraid the free doughnuts being given out at the local shop would be gone by the time he reached it.

The "Spiderpig," Homer named him, manure storage bin was the straw that broke the camel’s back. The EPA had to be called in and the city of Springfield was isolated from the rest of the world by a giant glass dome in order to shut down the spread of the ecological disaster.

Ironically, the spot where this container washed up was on the Poll Na Crann beach near Griminish, which is also known as Stinky Bay (with a name like this it would be logical to assume it was a pig manure container), in west Benbecula in Scotland’s Western Isles.

A number of those who rang the BBC thought they could identify the object. Some thought it could have been a special storage tank for chemicals used in special aircraft paints. Another suspected it might have been one of the meteorological rockets that were launched nearby in the 1960s and 70s.

Appropriately for 31 December, the container turns out to have been a beer fermentation tank. For all of you out there tonight, Happy New Year and all the best in 2008.

Full text of the BBC story can be found here.

In a slightly related story an alarmist review of The Simpsons movie on an Australian website puts more warning labels for this film than you find on the walls at the average nuclear power plant. The Tipper Gores of the world have nothing on this site, Young Media Australia, which appears to be the modern-day, western political correctness incarnation of Cold War-era North Korean social conduct propaganda, but with a new and improved culturally sensitive Smurfland thrown into the mix. It claims the film is shot full of violence, nudity, coarse language, substance abuse, and sexual innuendo and situations.

Among the more egregious scenes recounted in this laborious dissection of the film is one of "animated violence" in which "the Head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) throws his binoculars at his second in charge. They miss, hit their vehicle, bounce back, hit the wall of the dome, then bounce off to hit him in the head."

Gee, I hope these people never get to review "Rush Hour 3."

You can read their list of horrifying Simpson treehouse of horrors discoveries here.

From the New York Post: Interview with Petraeus, by Ralph Peters.

From Townhall: Lessons from the Surge, by Michael Barone.

From the New York Post: Reality Chech, by Stephen Schwartz.

From the New York Daily News: Well done, soldiers, by General George W. Casey Jr.

From THE DAILY STANDARD: State of the Race, by Dean Barnett.

From Lawyers, Guns, and Money: Surface Combat in WWII, by Robert Farley.

Marine milblogger "Slab" reports from western Iraq:

As for my personal end of this little fracas, it's been distressingly quiet. I'm certainly pleased about our progress in this little slice of the province, but ANGLICO is an organization that specializes in delivering large quantities of firepower, and our services are not in as much need as I would like. We'll continue to make whatever contributions we can, and we'll remain the "break glass in case of TIC (Troops in Contact)" organization. I guess, looking outside of my own personal views, it's a good thing when a group that specializes in spectacular kinetic effects of the sort produced by 500 lb bombs is feeling under-utilized. In this kind of fight, that means progress.

Earlier this year, Slab's wife asked him what he wanted for Christmas. His reponse? "Insurgents."

National Defense reports:

The Marine Corps and the Army have decided to curtail their orders for mine-resistant ambush-protected vehicles, ostensibly because they foresee fewer roadside bomb attacks in Iraq. But there are other reasons, such as the impracticality of operating these vehicles off-road and in urban areas. A Marine Corps official says the 60,000 to 80,000-pound vehicles create significant logistics impediments that would make them hard to deploy, not just to Iraq, but to almost any other war zone.

“Seventy-two percent of the world’s bridges cannot hold the MRAP,” says Brig. Gen. Ronald Johnson, assistant deputy commander for plans, policies and operations. Transporting the vehicles to combat zones also is tough for Marines because the trucks cannot fit aboard the amphibious ships that carry Marine equipment and supplies. “You can’t put an MRAP on a maritime pre-positioning force ship,” Johnson says.

The need for the vehicles has diminished greatly over the last six months, but should that trend be reversed, the MRAP will clearly remain a problematic solution to the IED problem. And it seems clear that the Pentagon has doubts as to whether the vehicles will have any relevance outside of, or after, Iraq. But I'm sure Joe Biden has already thought long and hard about these issues and is prepared to show the military why they've got it wrong.

Remember Black Sunday? You can check out the Ron Paul Blimp here.

What will they think of next, you ask? Watch Ron Paul's Time Machine Mega Money Mania!

HT: Hot Air

You can read it at the Campaign Standard. The key quote:

The last DMR poll appeared a month ago, and had Huckabee at 29 and Romney at 24, followed by Giuliani at 13, Thompson at 9, and McCain and Paul at 7. What poll results tomorrow morning could affect the outcome Thursday night? Two results in particular could be interesting. If Romney has caught up to or passed Huckabee, that would presumably legitimize, so to speak, further defections from Huckabee waverers. And if McCain has moved into third ahead of Giuliani and Thompson, that could give him more momentum and enable him to secure third in Iowa--and perhaps even to pull closer to second (especially if a new New Hampshire poll out tonight shows, as is rumored, McCain leading in New Hampshire).

Polls are supposed to predict election outcomes. But, as everyone knows, they can also affect the outcome. This is especially the case in multi-candidate primaries or caucuses. For one thing, some voters don't want to "waste" their votes on laggards. For another, some voters who are more-or-less undecided among two or more candidates (and there are many such in primaries, since candidates within a party often don't differ that much on issues) can see a candidate pick up momentum, and that can push them off the fence or strengthen an inclination to jump in a certain way.

The final Des Moines Register poll is supposed to appear on line tonight, and in the paper tomorrow morning. The last DMR poll appeared a month ago, and had Huckabee at 29 and Romney at 24, followed by Giuliani at 13, Thompson at 9, and McCain and Paul at 7. What poll results tomorrow morning could affect the outcome Thursday night? Two results in particular could be interesting. If Romney has caught up to or passed Huckabee, that would presumably legitimize, so to speak, further defections from Huckabee waverers. And if McCain has moved into third ahead of Giuliani and Thompson, that could give him more momentum and enable him to secure third in Iowa--and perhaps even to pull closer to second (especially if a new New Hampshire poll out tonight shows, as is rumored, McCain leading in New Hampshire).

Or perhaps the DMR poll won't matter at all.

Yesterday Japanese prime minister Yasuo Fukuda wrapped up his first visit to China since taking office in September. Chinese media hailed the trip as a perfect conclusion to the series of bilateral exchanges between the two countries during the past year. In the words of Fukuda and his Chinese counterpart, Wen Jiabao, the four-day visit heralded the "arrival of spring" to Sino-Japanese relations.

In Beijing, Fukuda met with the top three Chinese leaders: president Hu Jintao, premier Wen Jiabao, and Wu Bangguo, chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress.

On Saturday, at the gymnasium of the Diaoyutai State Guesthouse, Fukuda and Wen played catch. The carefully staged photo op showed Wen in the same baseball jersey that he wore this past April while playing ball with students of Kyoto’s Ritsumeikan University during his visit to Japan. The back of the uniform bore the number 35, highlighting the fact that this year marks the 35th anniversary of the normalization of relations between the two countries.

The trip also took the Japanese leader to the northeastern port city of Tianjin, a magnet for Japanese investment and a growth engine for north China.

But what appealed to Chinese cultural pride most was Fukuda’s visit to Qufu, a city in the eastern province of Shandong famed for being the birthplace of Confucius. Chinese media noted that the pilgrimage was initiated by the Japanese side, and credited it with giving "depth" to Fukuda’s itinerary. Liberation Daily regarded it as a gesture by the Japanese leader to "show respect" and "to stress the common bond among East Asian civilizations."

That Fukuda happens also to be well versed in The Analects of Confucius did not go unnoticed by Chinese media, which reported that the Japanese prime minister not only sprinkled his speeches with quotes from the Chinese sage, but that during his stay in Qufu he wielded a brush pen and demonstrated his calligraphic skills. It was noted in particular that Fukuda penned the phrase wengu chuangxin (creating things new through learning things old), a slight modification of the famous Confucian maxim wengu zhixin (gaining insights new through learning things old). People’s Daily interpreted this to mean that the two countries are to "take a lesson from history while at the same time looking toward the future."

While coverage given by Chinese media to Fukuda’s visit was overwhelmingly favorable, a discordant note was sounded in an article titled "Japanese prime minister paying respects to Confucius; has Japan absorbed the essence of Confucianism?" The article has been circulating on the websites of various Chinese media outlets, including the Japanese edition of People’s Daily.

Around this time every year, the staffers at the Weekly Standard provide their individual lists of recommended reading. This year, Bill Kristol implored everyone to read “anything by P.G. Wodehouse.” Shortly after this recommendation appeared, we learned that Wodehouse-mania is sweeping Russia, which is the best news to come out of Russia since Vladimir Putin appointed himself Czar.

Also, Scottish journalist Alex Massie, in a blog post titled "The Wodehouse Primary," showed how Wodehouse characters can provide useful guidance in observing the presidential campaign:

In my sourer moments I find myself persuaded that Bertie Wooster's verdict on aunts also applies to politicians: "It is no use telling me that there are bad aunts and good aunts. At the core, they are all alike. Sooner or later, out pops the cloven hoof."

Never is this more the case than during a Presidential campaign. The sheer ghastliness of the front-runners is something to behold. Or not, as the case may be.

Try as I might, for instance, I find it hard to warm to Hillary Clinton even as I acknowledge that some of the hysteria surrounding her is absurdly overblown. And yet, there's something to it too. This story in today's Washington Post about Hillary's struggle to appeal to male voters won't have pleased the campaign much, (it's pretty anecdotal for one, and, for another, she is doing slightly better with white men than might be imagined). Still, it's undeniable that there's something about Hillary's demeanour that puts people off. It's not as simple as her being a woman, though that doubtless disqualifies her in some folks' eyes, but that she's a particular type of woman.

As always Wodehouse is an invaluable guide to matters of the heart. Dipping into The Inimitable Jeeves last night, it struck me that, for a certain kind of chap, Hillary is the Honoria Glossop of the presidential campaign. It's not just that Hillary's now infamous "cackle" is dangerously reminiscent of Miss Glossop's laugh "that sounded like a squadron of cavalry charging across a tin bridge."

No, it's more that Hillary too often gives the impression of sharing Honoria's horrifying determination to mould a fellow. To wit, one can easily imagine Hillary addressing a chap, thus:

"I think" she said "I shall be able to make something of you, Bertie. It is true yours has been a wasted life up to the present, but you are still young, and there is a lot of good in you...It simply wants bringing out."

But what if you don't want bringing out? Opting out ain't an option with this sort of girl.

Read Massie's entire outstanding post, if only to enjoy the funny British spellings he occasionally uses. And for goodness sakes, read Wodehouse!

Reason has posted an interview with Roger Stone, whom Matt Labash profiled for THE WEEKLY STANDARD a few weeks ago. You can read the excellent Labash piece here, and below is the video from reason.tv.

On Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallace asked the Roundtable for their predictions for the Iowa caucuses:

WALLACE: All right. Enough talk. Yepsen ducked it, but I'm not going to let you guys duck it, except for Brit Hume, who will do what he chooses to do.

So starting with you, Juan, top three finishers, Republican, in Iowa.

WILLIAMS: Well, I think Romney has the bullets and he has the people on the ground, but I wouldn't put aside the idea that people will say, "You know what? Huckabee is the guy." So I would say Huckabee, Romney, McCain.

WALLACE: Really? And McCain gets the third, which would help him in New Hampshire.

WILLIAMS: I think McCain is the guy coming right now from behind.

WALLACE: Bill Kristol.

KRISTOL: Romney wins, I think, pretty comfortably. Huckabee fades. McCain gains on Huckabee. And I think it wouldn't be totally out of the question for McCain to sneak past Huckabee into second. But I think McCain is a strong third.

LIASSON: Yeah, I think Romney, Huckabee, McCain.

WALLACE: Romney, Huckabee...

LIASSON: Romney by a hair. I disagree with Bill on that. Romney by a hair, Huckabee, McCain.

WALLACE: And this is going to be the big surprise. Mr. Hume, what have you got to say for yourself?

HUME: Howard Dean all the way.

And for the Dems:

WALLACE: All right. Let's go and get the videotape rolling.

Juan Williams, less than a minute left. What's going to be the order of finish, first, second and third in Iowa?

WILLIAMS: Well, I think it's Clinton, Edwards, Obama. I think, you know, when people look back on Obama saying, "Oh, let's have cross-border raids and go get bin Laden," I don't think that stuff helps with experience.

WALLACE: You can't run out the clock here.

Bill Kristol?

KRISTOL: Edwards wins, I think. Obama second. Clinton third. The second choice supporters of the other candidates go to Edwards and Obama.

WALLACE: Mara?

LIASSON: Obama, Clinton, Edwards.

WALLACE: And...

HUME: No idea.

WALLACE: Well, at least you're consistent.

The Sunday Telegraph carries this story today:

The critics said it couldn't be done, but the vision and determination of General David Petraeus have brought greater security and cause for optimism to the people of Iraq. He is The Sunday Telegraph's Person of the Year.

The piece is worth reading, and the award is well deserved. It's nice to see that the current success in Iraq is finally getting through in the British press. And if you haven't yet read the boss's editorial in this week's issue, here it is: Gen. David Petraeus, Man of the Year.

Back in July, when Iran first launched Press TV, a state-subsidized, 24 hour, English-language news network, Louis Wittig wrote a piece for THE DAILY STANDARD analyzing some of the station's early reporting. His conclusion: "Press TV broadcasts a guy in a collarless shirt telling the story the Iranian government wants us to hear."

But Press TV also has a website, and like most internet propaganda from that part of the world, the people that put it together are often pretty lazy about where they pull their images from--which, on occasion, leads to a phenomenon commonly referred to in blogosphere geekspeak as "pwning." We've covered this here before, but I always find the result amusing. So here's the latest from a site called The People's Cube. It's a screen capture of a Press TV story about how Iranian Jews have denounced foreign press reports that they were helping some of their own get out of the Islamic Republic in order to emigrate to Israel. Whoever is getting their news from these clowns must have been a bit startled by the accompanying photo...

HT: Jawa Report

Surely one of the most important thing Republican primary voters are evaluating in these final days before they begin casting votes is a candidate's views on the size and scope of government. And on that subject, these voters will want to pay careful attention to the words of Mike Huckabee from Meet the Press this morning.

Host Tim Russert pointed out that the Cato Institute had given Huckabee poor grades for his fiscal management of Arkansas during the time he was governor there and noted that Huckabee had raised taxes several times over the course of his tenure. Huckabee did not back down. He noted that he raised taxes and fees to pay for education and to improve roads and boasted of the results.

And then he said something very un-conservative about the role of government today.

"That's what being a governor is all about," he said. It's about creating opportunities for the people of your state."

Is that what being president is all about? Creating opportunities--by raising taxes and increasing the size of government--for the people of your country?

We are down to the last 100 hours in Iowa. On the Democratic side the big factor to watch is support for John Edwards in the stretch. If he stays in the hunt, he could either win by an inch or simply pull enough anti-Hillary vote away from Obama to give the former First Lady an comeback win. If he fades a bit, my guess is Obama will win with a decent margin. My gut tells me that Edward's latest inching up in Iowa polls is an result of the big third party television spending on his behalf, and will not be there for him on caucus day. But this Democratic Iowa race is very tight now, and just about anything could happen.

Meanwhile I now think Mitt Romney has a better than 50/50 chance to beat Huckabee in Iowa and John McCain will beat Fred Thompson for third place. Good chance Freddie then drops out; probably to endorse McCain. N.H. is going to be a whopper of a race.

Here at the Weekly Standard, we honor excellence. Thus, I am sure that all my colleagues, even the

embittered Philadelphia Eagle fans amongst them, share my enthusiasm for the New England Patriots' perfect season and have enjoyed watching history develop nearly as much as I have.

Speaking as the Standard's resident Patriot fan, I can tell you that the Patriots' sustained run of brilliance this decade still stuns longtime supporters of the team. It wasn't always like this. For decades the Patriots were the worst run and most pathetic professional sports franchise in America. In the lead-up to Super Bowl XXXIX, I wrote a lengthy piece titled, “A Not So Brief History of the New England Patriots.” Highlights of the Patriots’ checkered past included:

1969 – The Patriots once again change their home for the third time in their nine year existence, this time moving to Boston College's campus in the leafy suburb of Chestnut Hill. Things continue to go poorly for the star-crossed franchise as Coach Clive Rush nearly fatally electrocutes himself at a press conference when he grabs an ungrounded microphone. Press wags joke that if there had only been a few more amps, he would have gotten off easy.

1976 – Monday Night Football visits the Patriots at their fifth home, Schaefer Stadium, for the first time. Things don’t go well. Over 60 inebriated fans are arrested as a virtual drunken riot breaks out in the stands. Two fans die due to heart attacks brought on by the chaos.

1990 – As the team plods along in sub-mediocre fashion, off-field disaster strikes once again when several naked Patriot players verbally harass Boston Herald reporter Lisa Olson in the locker room. New owner Victor Kiam handles the crisis in a fashion so maladroit it calls to mind longtime prior owner and notorious imbecile Billy Sullivan. At a speaking engagement, Kiam asks his audience what Lisa Olson and the Iraqis (then fighting America in Gulf War I) have in common. Answer: They’re both seeing a lot of Patriot missiles. Ba-da-bum!

This is perhaps an unwise tack for Kiam to take since his principal business, Remington Razor, sells many of its products to women. The scandal and the resulting boycott eventually do enough financial damage to Kiam that he has to sell the team to Robert Orthwein who intends to relocate the franchise to his St. Louis home.

That’s what it was like for the Patriots before Bill Parcells came to town in 1993 and turned the Patriots into a bona fide professional franchise. Most Patriots fans loathe Parcells, but those of us with long memories know he changed the direction of this team.

On the one hand you have the Feiler Faster Thesis, which holds that in our era of rapidly churning news cycles, seemingly major stories vanish quickly and alter the political landscape for a shorter period than one would think. The Feiler Faster thesis suggests that by the time Iowans fill their buggies with ethanol and head out to caucus on Thursday, the disturbing events in Pakistan will have long since receded from the public's mind.

And on the other hand, you have what my barista at Starbucks told me yesterday.

Yesterday, my wife and I headed into Starbucks for her daily afternoon rendezvous with a grandé 2% latte with an extra shot. As is her custom, she bent down to purchase a New York Times. (I keep telling her they give it away for free on the internet, but does she listen?) But there were no copies of the Times in the bin, a rarity for this southern Florida Starbucks. She asked the barista where the Times was, and he told us, “Everyone wanted to read about that thing in Pakistan. We were sold out by noon. That never happens.”

The assassination of Benazhir Bhutto may have a significant impact on the American electorate. This isn't because the typical American habitually follows the Pakistani political scene with painstaking diligence. I highly doubt the average American could find Pakistan on a map. As we’ve seen, even some presidential candidates appear to have a bit of trouble in that regard.

But the symbolism of what happened on Thursday is powerful. Jihadist thugs murdered an attractive, westernized woman in cold blood. The attack had the shock value of a major act of terrorism. Obviously its impact doesn't compare to 9/11, but its impact is significant. Sometimes much of the public forgets how pitiless and dangerous our enemies are. Thursday's events provided a jolting reminder to the greater public on this score. This story wasn't just for news junkies.

Of course, the media's preferred narrative regarding Bhutto has had an impact. Friday’s elegiac media coverage of Bhutto completely ignored the more, shall we say, nuanced aspects of her life. Ralph Peters of the New York Post served as a strident one man truth squad regarding Bhutto's actual life as compared to the instantly spawned media mythology. Peters's efforts notwithstanding, the public's perception of Bhutto’s life and death is clear.

So will this impact the presidential race in general and specifically the Iowa caucuses? On the Democratic side, the answer is no. Democrats have spent the last four years convincing themselves that the biggest (and only) threat to the world is George W. Bush. It will take something seismic to shake them from that view.

A Reuters report on Iraq today carries the ridiculous yet entirely accurate headline "Iraq gains are "reversible": Petraeus." Of course the gains are reversible, but that was hardly the key message Petraeus was delivering in his letter to the troops. But more interesting is that after reporting that--according to Petraeus and unchallenged by anyone--"the number of attacks in Iraq had fallen by 60 percent since June and the number of civilian deaths had fallen by 75 percent since a year ago," the story adds this nugget:

But figures supplied at Petraeus's briefing also showed a slight rise in suicide car and vest bombs since October. At least 33 people were killed by two suicide bombs on Christmas Day, and 10 people died in a Baghdad car bomb on Friday.

The left has already pounced. Think Progress says "Rate of suicide bombs rises in Iraq." And the Huffington Post runs the story under the same header. But take a look at the graph in question:

That tiny rise, from what appear to be 18 month lows, is the story the left has latched on to. Meanwhile, the total number of high-profile attacks is down sharply--and "December is on track to be the least deadly month for U.S.-led forces in Iraq." Funny how HuffPo and Think Progress didn't find that newsworthy.

Liz Cheney that is, and the one-two punch comes from the Washington Post's top ten opinion stories of 2007 by pageviews:

2. Why Bush Will Be a Winner by William Kristol, published July 15.

A rousing (and controversial) defense of the president's legacy. The rebuttal, Why Bush is a Loser by David Corn, was also high on the most-popular list. But the top spot goes to:

1. Retreat Isn't an Option by Liz Cheney, published Jan. 23.

Cheney's piece was excellent ("We will have to fight these terrorists to the death somewhere, sometime. We can't negotiate with them or "solve" their jihad. If we quit in Iraq now, we must get ready for a harder, longer, more deadly struggle later."), and Kristol's...well, it prompted my lefty mother in-law to call on a Sunday morning and ask 'he doesn't really believe this, does he?' I love my mother in-law, but I've yet to come across a more certain validation for any piece of intellectual work.

From North Shore Journal:

Sometime on December 27, 2007, in a fierce gun battle in Al Kut, a milestone was reached.

The 20,000 AIF [Anti Iraqi Forces] terrorist was killed by our troops.

Says Ace: "Cowards, Murderers Hardest Hit."

With a new ad in New Hampshire, Romney's gone after McCain for his failure to support the Bush tax cuts and his support of the failed immigration reform/amnesty. But as Slate's John Dickerson reports, the McCain campaign is apparently toying with a response that comes from...Mitt's own people. Dickerson:

The ad hangs Romney with his own words—he advocates for a woman's right to choose and gun control, gets tongue tied on his own hunting practices, and distances himself from Ronald Reagan). What makes the ad particularly powerful for the McCain team, though, is that it was produced by media wizards who now work for Romney. Stuart Stevens and Russ Schriefer are veterans of the Bush campaign, which so effectively used John Kerry's words against him. They moved from Bush to McCain, but left and moved to Romney after the McCain operation imploded. When they were McCain guys, though, they helped put together this ad and pushed for running it, according to McCain aides and advisers. "Russ and Stuart were very animated in several meetings about attacking Romney," says a McCain ally.

Here's the video from Slate, which includes both ads:

While I believe in the infallibility of divine insight, your Cardinal is only human, not to mention French and reactionary, so I, um, could be wrong on many of the opinions I've been expressing about the primary race.

I doubt it. Still, I thought I'd show a little humility in this Holiday season with a special "I could be wrong" posting. This will not be a frequent occurrence.

Still, some things your Cardinal may be wrong about:

Barack Obama. I've predicted he will win the Democratic nomination for some time. But perhaps Hillary Clinton can manage a magnificent comeback in Iowa and roll on like a steamroller to lock up the nomination. Iowa is close. Maybe she will win. Or perhaps John Edwards will win, dent the Obama bubble and give HRC an opportunity to comeback in NH and beyond. I'm doubtful, but such an occurrence is not impossible. I'm a Cardinal, so I do have to believe in miracles.

Mike Huckabee. I could be wrong about his fast decaying half-life and perhaps he will surge out of Iowa to finish in the top two in New Hampshire and then potentially win S.C. and even Michigan. Then he'd be in business all the way. Though I still think it is only 50/50 that he wins Iowa.

Rudy Giuliani. A muddled finish in the early states, with Huckabee winning Iowa, McCain winning New Hampshire and Romney winning Michigan sets up a Rudy comeback in Florida, where the Mayor has been outspending everybody else on TV and still leads the polls. He also has the support of many of Miami's Cuban GOP bosses and a strong base of former NY voters in Broward county so he has real assets in Florida. I could turn out to be totally wrong about early state momentum and the Rudy wait and kill strategy actually works. Rudy soars to the nomination. If this happens, I'll eat my red hat, but again... I could be wrong.

Within one day of the Bhutto assassination in the military garrison city of Rawalpindi, there are multiple contradictory reports on how Benazir Bhutto was killed. The Pakistani government has changed its portrayal of her death three times in the 24 hours since her death. First she was reported to have been shot in the head and chest with AK-47 gunfire, then she was reported to have been killed by ball bearings from a suicide blast, and finally she died after suffering a skull fracture from hitting her head on the sunroof after the suicide bomber detonated.

The Daily Times, one of Pakistan's most reliable newspapers, reported that Bhutto was killed by gunfire after she poked through the sunroof to great her supporters.

*Benazir Bhutto was leaving Liaquat Bagh after addressing the rally when her vehicle, a Black Lexus bulletproof vehicle, stopped near the venue's gate where PPP workers were shouting party slogans.

* Benazir came out from the sunroof of her vehicle to respond to her supporters' slogans when a motorcyclist opened Kalashnikov fire on her.

* Benazir fell inside her vehicle after receiving bullet injuries on her head and neck.

* The attacker blew himself up after firing the shots.

This report is consistent with statements from two Bhutto aides, who said Bhutto was shot and bleeding once she got back inside the car. "Rescuers found Bhutto lying in pool of blood on the back seat. A senior party official, Amin Fahim, who had been sitting beside her, said he heard 'between three and five shots,'" the Guardian reported. "Amir Qureshi, a bodyguard from Bhutto's youth wing who had been jogging alongside her vehicle, said she was shot first in the neck, then in the head... Doctors administered open heart massage but Bhutto died from a bullet that severed her spinal cord, one medic at the Rawalpindi hospital said."

"She was hit in the neck and slumped back in the vehicle," the Herald Sun reported. "Blood poured from her head, and she never regained consciousness." A Pakistan Peoples Party spokesman also stated Bhutto "fell inside the vehicle after receiving bullets in her head and neck."

This account matches that of multiple police officers and eyewitnesses on the scene, including John Moore, a photographer from Getty Images, who was 20 yards from Bhutto during the attack. Moore clearly states that Bhutto went through the sunroof prior to the explosion:

"I ran up, got as close as I got, made a few pictures of her waving to the crowd," Getty Images senior staff photographer John Moore told CNN's online streaming news service, CNN.com Live, in a phone interview Thursday from Islamabad, Pakistan.

"And then suddenly, there were a few gunshots that rang out, and she went down, she went down through the sunroof," he said. "And just at that moment I raised my camera up and the blast happened. ... And then, of course, there was chaos."

Last evening, the Pakistani government changed the story. News reports indicated that nvestigators told a top-level meeting, led by President Pervez Musharraf, that Bhutto was killed by shrapnel from the suicide bombing. "The initial report that was submitted to the high-level meeting disclosed that Benazir Bhutto was hit by the ball bearings of the suicide bomber's jacket that hit and cut her jugular vain," the paper stated. "It caused her excessive internal and external bleeding. As a result, she died in no time. The report was submitted before the post-mortem was performed on her body. The exact nature of the wounds would be determined by the post-mortem report."