So I'm reading Josh Marshall's defense of Joe Wilson and it just doesn't do the job for me, starting with his shoot-the-messenger snarking at Susan Schmidt (always refereshing to have liberals complain about the pro-Republican bias of the Washington Post).

He quotes from the Schmidt article:

Plame's role could be significant in an ongoing investigation into whether a crime was committed when her name and employment were disclosed to reporters last summer.

...

The report may bolster the rationale that administration officials provided the information not to intentionally expose an undercover CIA employee, but to call into question Wilson's bona fides as an investigator into trafficking of weapons of mass destruction. To charge anyone with a crime, prosecutors need evidence that exposure of a covert officer was intentional.

And then Marshall replies:

"There's no 'challenging the bona fides of a political opponent' exception to the law in question. While Plame's alleged role may have some political traction, it's legally irrelevant. Government officials are not allowed to disclose the identity of covert intelligence agents, whether they feel like they have a good reason or not."

Frankly, I'll await someone else's legal analysis before I make up my mind about that. But assuming Marshall is correct about the law, am I alone in thinking he's being disingenuous? Marshall's been banging the drums about the Plame story for a very long time. The essence of the entire scandal has been the contention that the White House deliberately endangered a CIA agent's life in order to punish Wilson. Must we recount all of the paranoid pieties about how "this White House will stop at nothing to silence its enemies"? Now Marshall's new talking point is a legalism. Well, excuse me: If in fact the White House inadvertantly revealed Plame's identity in order to explain why a dishonest hack like Wilson was being sent to Africa (i.e. "His wife pulled some strings") and not so as to endanger a whistle-blower's life that sounds like more than a matter of "some political traction." That sounds like the whole enchilada, scandal-wise.

Again, maybe Marshall's correct about the law, but he's pretty deep in the bunker if he thinks there's no difference -- to the public or to a jury -- between someone trying to rebut and explain a partisan attack from someone pretending to be a dispassionate public servent and inadvertantly spilling the beans about her job and someone saying "let's frag Wilson's wife."

Indeed, if Plame did in fact promote her husband for the job and he did subsequently distort the facts in an effort to undermine the White House in willful disregard to the facts as he knew them, it sounds to me like Husband and Wife were in on a partisan conspiracy together. That doesn't sound like something CIA analysts are supposed to be doing. No this wouldn't absolve the leaking of her identity, but it would detract from her martyr status quite a bit.

As today's [majority] opinion shows, the Court's disposition is required by the text of the statute. None of the limitations urged by petitioner finds support in the categorical language of 28 U. S. C. §1782(a). That being so, it is not only (as I think) improper but also quite unnecessary to seek repeated support in the words of a Senate Committee Report--which, as far as we know, not even the full committee, much less the full Senate, much much less the House, and much much much less the President who signed the bill, agreed with. Since, moreover, I have not read the entire so-called legislative history, and have no need or desire to do so, so far as I know the statements of the Senate Report may be contradicted elsewhere.

Accordingly, because the statute--the only sure expression of the will of Congress--says what the Court says it says, I join in the judgment.

The Moorification of the Democrats continues. This is not only bad on the merits, but will come back to bite them politically. From David Asman show (rough transcript):

MARY LANDRIEU: Well, first of all, talk about security. Let me talk about the movie. If there's any senator or any person that takes issue with

anything in that movie, they should lay their cards on the table. So far
that movie's been out for several weeks has grossed more money than
almost any documentary in the history and I haven't seen one credible
criticism that can't be backed up with a fact so that's that on the
movie.

ASMAN: Let me stop you there. You are saying there is nothing in the film that has not been criticized factually?

LANDRIEU: I am saying the last film out there and it's been out there
for three weeks there is not one criticism of that film that hasn't been
backed up substantially because of the fact checks...."

I do like this. "The court's head judge, Shi Jiuyong of China, said in the ruling: 'The wall ... cannot be justified by military exigencies or by the requirements of national security or public order."

Forget the fact that this guy is from a Communist country. Isn't anybody struck by the irony that a guy whose country's biggest tourist attraction is the Great Wall of China, is denouncing efforts to protect its citizens from foreign murderers?

(Yes, yes, I know the Great Wall didn't work too well. But still...!)

Matt Yglesias notes that Ramesh and I are (and others) are peeved with the failure of the GOP to make solid arguments. He then writes:

I think this focus on arguments is off-base. It's not that the Bush team has trouble putting together coherent conservative arguments, they don't put forward conservative coherent policies or, indeed, real policies at all. On the domestic front (as Paul O'Neill and others have told us) opportunism triumphs above all else while on foreign policy (except for a brief moment in Spring 2003 when Colin Powell was in a fit of personal pique against Dominique de Villepin) you have division, confusion, and drift. There simply aren't any arguments to be mounted in favor of the combination of tax cuts and entitlement expansions, or free trade agreements and shrimp tariffs and all the rest that we've seen from this administration.

Me: I think Yglesias is largely correct about a lot of that. But I think he misunderstands the importance of arguments. The need to make arguments creates consistency, not the other way around. Indeed, in a democracy it is folly to believe there is or can be serious separation between policies and the arguments for or against them. When crafting policy, someone should ask "How are we going to defend (or sell) this?" And if the answer comes up "we can't." Then they should sit back down, brew a fresh pot of coffee and keep noodling until they come up with the answer or a new policy. The answer needn't be consistent with previous answers -- though that's always nice -- but it must be consistent within itself. (And there are times when secrecy is necessary, but they should be very rare and very obvious).

There's a lot I do not buy in the current liberal meme about the White House being closed to contrary opinions, but there's a core truth to the criticism that the White House has not seemed overly concerned with convincing people it's right. And once you lose that concern you lose an important discipline which allows you to stay right (and be Right).

A reader writes about today's G-File:

Enjoyed your column as always. However, you wrote: "Indeed, they love observant Jews more than most Jews do. Why? Because the Right side of the culture war wants "traditionalists" of all stripes in its corner".

Nope. You don't see them making much common cause with mainstream Muslims, who are about on their level of religiosity and who are similarly horrified by atheism, marriage vows between gentlemen, exposed mammaries and sass-talkin'—much less Islamists. Evangelicals love observant Jews mostly because they literally believe that Jews are God's Chosen People and that the observant among them are extra-special chosen people. Evangelicals are far more into the Old Testament/Jewish Bible than Catholics or mainline protestants and have long seen Judiasm in an older sibling/predecessor/deposed champ role, whereas Catholics (another group of traditionalists Evangelicals are very unimpressed by) just latched onto this theme. Evengelicals are obsessed with Old and New Testament prophecy and of course believe that it indicates Jews will eventually believe Jesus was the Messiah. All assertions from personal observation.

Keep it real,

Chris

The Goldberg File is up.

From the Borowitz Report:

EDWARDS ASKS KERRY TO STOP GRABBING HIS ASS

Public Displays of Affection ‘Distracting,’ Says Kerry’s No. 2

After a mere two days on the campaign trail, the first signs of tension between John Kerry and running mate John Edwards emerged today as Sen. Edwards requested, firmly and unequivocally, that Mr. Kerry stop grabbing his ass.

“I think Sen. Kerry has made it very clear in our joint appearances that he is happy to have me on the ticket,” Mr. Edwards told reporters. “He really doesn’t have to prove it by repeatedly grabbing my ass.”

At a campaign stop in Pennsylvania today, Mr. Edwards was in the middle of a speech when he emitted a high-pitched yelp, apparently in response to yet another unexpected display of affection from Sen. Kerry....[There's more]

California State Education Secretary Richard Riordan stupidly teased a young girl named Isis. She asked him if he knew that it meant "Egyptian Goddess" and he responded that it meant "stupid dirty girl." He meant it as a joke but it was mean and stupid nonetheless.

But the NAACP insisted that it was racist and that he should resign. Various other civil rights types got into the act. Calling for mass protests and the like. That is until they discovered the little girl is blonde and white. Then the same groups retracted their calls for his resignation. I love it.

From a reader:

"Jonah,

Yep - you're too late - it has already happened. Jay Leno ran the hug-fest as the new Kerry campaign commercial. In fact, I place the odds at 10:1 that Brit Hume replays it on the final segment of his Fox show."

Hi, I'm Bill O'Reilly. Thank you for watching us tonight.

Hating America. That is the subject of this evening's "Talking Points Memo." According to a new poll, 40 percent of Canadian teenagers think America is an evil country. Among French-Canadian teens, the number jumps to 64 percent. Those numbers can be laid right on the doorstep of the Canadian media and government

As you may know, the FOX News Channel is not allowed in Canada, but CNN is. Fair and balanced? You decide.

The USA takes a relentless pounding from many Canadian news organizations and from the liberal government. So, what can we expect from the kids? They're not getting a full picture. And neither is most of the world.

Increasingly, the bully America is being portrayed as the devil. And the far left in this country is gleefully piling on. Guys like Michael Moore [are] running around the world telling everybody what a bad place America is. Moore and his enablers should be very proud of themselves

For the benefit of the Canadian kids, let's take a look at the record:

.The foreign and defense policies of Ronald Reagan (search) resulted in the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the freeing of approximately 122 million people in Eastern Europe.

. The state of Israel would cease to exist if not for American protection, and about 5.5 million Jews would be in grave danger.

. Nearly 23 million Taiwanese would be denied freedom if not for American protection. More than 48 million South Koreans would be living under a dictatorship if not for American protection. USA action led to the removal of the Serbian dictator Milosevic (search), who was responsible for the murders of hundreds of thousands of people in the Balkans.

. The USA and Britain removed the Iraqi dictator Hussein, who was responsible for the murders of hundreds of thousands of people in the Middle East. And we have also removed the terrorist Taliban government in Afghanistan.

. America is sending $15 billion to Africa to help victims of AIDS. We were unable to find out how much France contributes, if anything. To be fair, Canada sends $270 million, which is substantial.

. American action in Central America, Grenada, and Haiti has kept millions of people out of totalitarian regimes. Of course, all of this has cost every American taxpayer big. And thousands of American servicepeople have lost their lives protecting people overseas.

It is insulting and dishonest for Americans and Canadians and Europeans to condemn this country because they don't like certain policies. Dissent is good. Slander is unacceptable.

The truth is that the USA has freed more human beings in 230 years than the rest of the world combined. France has freed almost no one. Ditto Canada.

So, pardon me as I object to the Michael Moores of the world - and that man is too cowardly to come in here, all right? Pardon me as I object to the anti-American foreign press and bums like Chirac in France and Chretien in Canada.

America has a provable history of freeing oppressed people all over the world in fighting evil dictators. Canada should be ashamed that so many of its young people are flat out ignorant. And Americans should wise up and realize we are living in a changing world. Old friends are not necessarily true friends.

"The Western Health Board, which is responsible for enforcing the ban in western Ireland, said it was preparing files to prosecute customers who smoked in Fibber Magees on Wednesday night. Each violator could be fined up to $3,700 or spend three months in jail."

"...the crowd dispersed when government leaders announced they would crush any further opposition to the ban..."

"In the southern port of Cobh, County Cork, another publican announced he also had stopped letting customers smoke in his pub. Danny Brogan said he had little choice — his pub was now "crawling" with officials."

'Health Mullahs'? Yes, I think so.

Via Reason.

Kerry is only now starting to grasp that a year from now Iraq more likely will not be Vietnam, but maybe the most radical development of our time--and that all the Left’s harping is becoming more and more irrelevant. Witness his talk of security and his newfound embrace of the post-9/11 effort as a war rather than a DA’s indictment. It is not a good idea to plan on winning in November by expecting us to lose now in Iraq.

According to Vanessa Redgrave, the British actress and campaigner for human rights, especially on behalf of the Palestinians, Israel's troops practice wanton and deliberate infanticide.

She made this allegation in the course of a monotonal discourse about the suffering endured by the Arabs of the West Bank and Gaza Strip as her United Nations colleagues and escorts sat beside her without batting an eyelash.

No mother could possibly be accustomed to the fact that her little girl will go to school ''and will sit with her classmates and an Israeli sniper will shoot at a classroom full of Palestinian children who are in their uniforms with their little scarves,'' she said. The venue for this bizarre and spine-tingling charge was the colorful American Colony Hotel, where Palestinian politicians and propagandists prefer to meet foreign correspondents. ''Any Palestinian mother or schoolchild knows that a schoolchild who is dressed in the uniform can be and is frequently shot in the head -- not in the chest, not in the legs, in the head.'' Redgrave based this horrendous allegation on one of four documentary films produced by UNRWA (the U.N. Relief and Works Agency) and screened last month at the world organization's alternate headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland, where a conference was held on life in the Palestinian refugee camps. The camps are funded and operated by UNRWA. But a query put to UNRWA's spokesperson in the Gaza Strip, Paul McCann, suggested that the 68-year-old thespian either was dissembling or simply misunderstood....

The comedian John Leguizamo, who is half Puerto Rican, said the notion of Hispanics supporting Republicans was "like roaches for Raid." And Whoopi Goldberg, after joking about refusing to submit her material to campaign censors, made an extended sexual pun on the president's surname.

Then the Academy-Award-winning actress Meryl Streep asked which candidates Jesus might support.

"I wondered to myself during 'Shock and Awe,' I wondered which of the megaton bombs Jesus, our president's personal savior, would have personally dropped on the sleeping families of Baghdad?" Ms. Streep said.

My apologies for not carrying on the discussion about the social utility of lawyers, trial lawyers, plaintiff lawyers, talll lawyers and short lawyers yesterday. It just seemed like an endless corridor to start heading down.

Compounding my ingratitude, I'd like to ask the great legal minds out there for a little help. What is the state of Thurman Arnold's legacy? I'm interested in his writings as much as I am in his work as the head of FDR's anti-trust division. I'd be particularly interested to know if anybody still talks about his Folklore of Capitalism or claims to have been influenced by it.

Rich - Yeah I hear you. And the skepticism from numerous military guy readers echoes the point. Moreover there are non-partisan political reasons for giving the ISI a deadline. Remember Spain? Nabbing Osama before an American election makes some sense, doesn't it? Also, we didn't give the ISI a deadline for two years and so for two years they didn't catch him. What's wrong with trying a deadline?

Also, while I think deliberately trying to disrupt the Democratic Convention -- if true -- would be a stupid move, since when is it so outrageous for an elected leader to try to deliver results to the electorate before an election? Isn't that the whole point of elections? To hold leaders accountable? That, after all, is a far different thing then the Michael Moore theories that Bush knows where Osama Bin Laden is and can produce him at any politically convenient time.

From another reader:

Jonah,

Your reader makes a good point, and I’ll just add the obvious. I did Bush rants roughly once or twice a week until the 2002 elections. At that point I decided it was time to shut up. It’s a choice: do we want true-blue conservatives like ourselves to get the message out, but with Dems holding the reigns in Washington, or do we want to hold the reigns at the cost of the message. I guess I like the latter. Canadian conservatives like the former.

From a reader:

One factor we arch-wingers often fail to take into consider is that George Bush really isn't one of us. He didn't run in 2000 as a conservative, and he hasn't governed much as one -- particularly on spending, entitlements, the National Endowment for the arts, etc. On the other side of the ledger are significant accomplishments -- tax cuts and withdrawal from the ABM treaty. But overall, and excepting the war on terror, you might say he's a squish.

However, and the point about this not being Reagan's approach brings this up: Bush is a party builder. Reagan never was. The GOP Senate he got in 1980 was a coattails fluke, and he lost it in 1986.

Bush, on the other hand, was only the second Republican elected governor in Texas since Reconstruction. When he was elected, Democrats had strong majorities in both houses of the state legislature and the Congressional delegation. Democrats controlled every other statewide elective office at the state government level. That was only 10 years ago.

When Bush left office to assume the presidency, he left behind Republican majorities in both houses of the legislature -- and because of that, next year the congressional delegation will flip to the GOP. Further, every statewide elective office had gone Republican -- including, to my knowledge, the only two statewide-elected African-Americans in the United States. One is a Supreme Court justice, the other a railroad commissioner (the latter's big stuff in Texas, has something to do with oil).

Bush is a moderate Republican. He's putting on a moderate convention. If this results in a stronger Senate and House majority and a more conservative judiciary, I sure as hell won't complain.

That was an excellent point Ramesh. And for the record I really didn't/don't disagree with Kate so much as disagree with the hay Andrew Sullivan is making of Kate's point. Truth be told, I'm fairly disgusted with the GOP these days. Again, I think conservatives sacrificed a lot when we bought into the notion that the President of the United States doesn't need to be an effective communicator. Yes, it's nice to know that Bush's gut instincts are often right (though they're also often left), but his inability or unwillingness to make serious arguments hurts. And that style informs the GOP style across the board these days. Being the majority party in a system which so effectively empowers the minority party means that everyone has to listen to your arguments, it doesn't mean your arguments automatically win.

So, when the majority party refuses to ground its actions in principle and defend them with reason it will, of necessity, look like it is ruling by whim rather than governing by conviction. With a few important exceptions, Bush's domestic priorities look like an attempt to buy support rather than persuade the public about anything. That works for Democrats because the Democratic Party is, at the end of the day, about bribing the electorate. The Republican Party is supposed to be the party which persuades the electorate that they'd be better off not accepting the bribes. And everyone -- America and the GOP included -- loses when the two parties get into a bidding war like divorced parents over who can spoil Americans more.

While campaigning, John Kerry has missed over two thirds of all votes.

Missed a vote to lower health-care costs by reducing frivolous lawsuits against doctors.

Missed a vote to fund our troops in combat.

Yet, Kerry found time to vote against the Laci Peterson law that protects pregnant women from violence. Kerry has his priorities.

Are they yours?

A reader makes a perfectly fair point: "If you expand the death penalty to child porn cases, you have the same problem that you used to have in rape death-penalty cases--you remove most of the incentive for the criminal to avoid killing the victim or other witnesses."

Now I think this is a legitimate objection worth considering. But what I do find interesting and/or ironic about it is how it buys into the logic of deterrence which we are told doesn't work. I should say, I've never thought the death penalty could be or should be justified solely on the concept of deterrence. But liberals say it's not a deterrence, that it doesn't influence behavior. Which is where the irony comes in. While the death penalty is supposed to have no influence on would-be murderers, it's supposed to be a major incentive for rapists and others to commit murder.

I'm with Kate, as usual. Jonah notes that the convention planners won't get good press no matter what they do--which is true, but all the more reason not to let worries about the media have too much influence over planning. If it really is true that spotlighting Pataki et al will win swing voters--more on that in a moment--that's fine. I don't think Kate is objecting to Pataki's being there. But Bush has a problem with the base too, and it should be represented as well.

I think Kate's criticism touches on a deeper problem with this administration: its unwillingness even to try to win arguments. So often, it appears more interested in getting its legislative agenda through sheer force--twisting enough arms to get the 218th vote in the House--than in persuading anyone that conservative (or conservative-ish) initiatives make sense. Overseas, it has been more interested in saying that we are going to do what we are going to do than in getting people to agree that what we are doing is in the world's interests. The convention line-up suggests that the Republicans believe that the conservative message could never possibly appeal to the unconverted. It's a far cry from Reagan's approach. It reminds me of Rick Brookhiser's old line about the Republicans: In their hearts, they know they're wrong.

A thoughtful email--I've altered the quotation marks as usual but not the typos: "As most people can see, outing is a mean and nasty thing to do to someone—an invasion of their privacy. It’s uncvil. But the ideology underneath it is also uncivil. People like Signorile are in the grip of a powerful ideology that they do not recognize as such. You could be an advocate of gay marriage, and even think that supporting gay marriage flows naturally from accepting the equality and worth of gay people—that’s not the ideology I’m talking about. What I mena is when people assume that opponetns of gay marriage have to be against (or ‘hate’) gay people. That is, you don’t just think that accpeting the dignity of gay people means gay marriage; you think that the fact is so obvious that no person in good faith can think otherwise. There’s no humane argument on the other side that people can sincerely (though perhaps mistakenly) believe.

"Remember, the whole argument for outing is that gay people shouldn’t be making ‘anti-gay’ votes. So it depends on the identification of positions as simply, necessarily ‘anti-gay’: an ideological move that we’re all so used to that we hardly think to challenge it.

"Maybe the response should just be to out everyone whether or not it's true. Say Stanley Kurtz likes guys and Maggie Gallagher likes women and Orrin Hatch goes to gay bars. Fine. Stipulated. Now can we talk about whether gay marriage is a good idea--or, to make the point you always make, whether it's an idea that judges should embrace for hte rest of us?"

Going by the old adage of "if you're not on offense you're on defense" I'd like to return to the question of expanding the death penalty. A couple in Pennsylvania plus a third man were arrested for producing and/or distributing porn with minors (and abusing them and getting them drunk), including photographing a child less than two years old. (I found it via Drudge). Now, let's assume this is all as bad as it sounds. Let's assume it's even worse than it sounds. I know that pedophiles are gaining new found "legitimacy" in some corners because they're being redefined as mentally ill rather than, well, evil -- or because they produced Grammy-winning records.

But, really, what's the downside of having a death penalty for the very worst cases of child pornography? In the age of the internet and digital technology, the existing penalties don't work. Moreover, making a buck from other peoples' depravities at the expense of kids seems worthy of punishment by death. But hey, that's me.

(The liberal) project and the dream of radical Islam are alike pursuits after lost glories. In its eighth century heyday, Islam wielded a two-edged sword. Not only were their mobile tactics superior to those of the petty kingdoms around them, they brandished a creed and social structure which was in many ways superior to the barbarian modes which they encountered. Similarly, while Napoleon wielded the levees en masse; he rode on the greater wave of revolutionary France before whose ideas the dynastic houses of Europe trembled. But at the dawn of the 21st century, these two mighty blades had dwindled into single-edged fillets of rusted iron. Islam no longer the representative of a prosperous and tolerant society and the idea of France shrunken to a kind of petty socialism peopled with legions of pensioners.

The truly terrifying thing about the American sword is that it is genuinely two-edged. The front edge consists of military power unparalleled in human history. Yet it is the weaker side; the back edge consists of a system with an an uncanny ability to absorb almost any sort of human, scientific and engineering potential and convert it into unimaginable wealth. The front edge is used but to ward; but it is the back edge that truly destroys rival societies.

Mikulski issues sudden press release.

Kate - I'd add one more thing to the merits of having McCain & Giuliani speaks (as far as Pataki goes, I'd be perfectly happy if quit to join the Democrats or the Black Panther Party for all I care).

At a time when the Democrats have been fairly successful in painting the war in Iraq as George W. Bush's mistaken or immoral adventure, isn't it a good idea to remind the public that even the more moderate members of the party support the war, want total victory and believe that Bush is on the right side of the argument? Bush is largely running for president to re-up as Commander-in-Chief. Using the politicians swing-voters love to make the case for Bush seems perfectly legitimate. Indeed, this isn't a lie -- as Sullivan claims -- it's a true show of support from Republicans who are united on the war on terror. No one expects to McCain to say he supports Bush's budgets (who does?), but presumably whatever "straight talk" he offers in praise of Bush will be sincere. Or is McCain only a straight talker when he criticizes his own party?

Jonathan, regarding your second post on this topic, two points: 1) I doubt that the justices who wish to preserve Roe's "central holding" will really be swayed by learning that Roe and Doe were more limited than they thought. I don't think that their willingness to allow restrictions on abortion depends much on purely legal considerations. But one can hope. 2) I don't recall if Stenberg said anything about mental health, but it did make it pretty clear that an abortion regulation had not only to allow abortion where continued pregnancy threatened health, but to allow whatever the abortionist judged to be the safest type of abortion in the individual case even if continued pregnancy posed no health risks. That's pretty sweeping, and it makes the mental/physical distinction something of a sideshow. Judge Phyllis Hamilton's recent injunction makes this point even more explicit.

And here's an email I received about the question of whether Buck is right about Doe, which I have very slightly edited to remove identifying information:

"I caught your exchange in The Corner with Jonathan Adler about Stuart Buck's interpretation of Doe v. Bolton, and I went to have a look at Buck's blog. I think he--and alas, Justice Thomas--are wrong, though he has a point, sort of. I have myself made the same point as you about the Doe radicalization of Roe . . . and having read Buck's post and reread Doe, I might have to refine the way I make the argument, but I think you and I are still right.

"Here's why. What Blackmun confronted was a 'void for vagueness' complaint about the Georgia law, since its exception for 'health' did not specify what that meant--just physical health, or other kinds besides? And yes, Buck is right, he interpreted the statute broadly (following a precedent in the D.C. case of U.S. v. Vuitch) to cover every conceivable form of health, and did not explicitly state this breadth to be a constitutional requirement. But the question is, why did Blackmun make this move?

"The answer is that he was offering what is sometimes called a 'saving interpretation' of the law. That is, Blackmun believed the statute had to cover all forms of health or else it WOULD BE unconstitutional on vagueness grounds. Blackmun had a choice--he could have offered a narrow reading of 'health' (which would have accorded more with common sense), and said that that solved the vagueness problem. But he chose the broad reading, and that counts for something constitutionally, in my opinion.

"Does this mean that a more specific statute, expressly declaring that only danger to a woman's physical health could justify an exception to a proscription on late abortions, would pass constitutional muster? Maybe, but I doubt Blackmun would have tolerated it. The animosity of later courts toward any kind of ban on any kind of abortion at any stage of pregnancy for any reason is perfectly consistent with Doe. (Notice also that in Doe, Blackmun struck down the restriction of abortions to accredited hospitals, the use of hospital abortion committees, and the requirement of a second physician's concurrence. In other words, he did everything he could to leave abortions to the unreviewed discretion of single physicians who, in many cases, have a vested interest in performing the procedure, whatever a woman's reason for desiring one. Talking women out of it, or refusing them outright, was anathema to Blackmun.)

"Practical effect matters here. Some old laws remain on the books banning abortions of various kinds. If Stuart Buck, or Justice Thomas, or anyone else, can name a case in which a licensed physician was successfully prosecuted in the U.S. for no other reason than the performance of a post-viability abortion, I'll eat volume 410 of the United States Reports. The universal opinion of every prosecutor in America for the last 31 years seems to be the same as yours and mine."

[C]onstantly calling John Edwards a trial lawyer may not directly change a lot of votes; indeed, I'll concede that in some places (Madison County, Illinois?) it'll probably help the Dems. But here's what Reynolds et. al are missing: John Trial Lawyer Edwards is going to re-energize key segments of the GOP base who might otherwise have wavered. Doctors. Small business owners. The US Chamber of Commerce. The Business Roundtable and the National Association of Manufacturers. All part of Bush's base, but all wavering due to Bush's free spending ways, Iraq worries, the economy, etc. All of those folks, however, have a deep animosity towards trial lawyers. The prospect of having a trial lawyer one heart beat from the Presidency will re-energize them to contribute to Bush, the RNC, and the emerging pro-Bush 527s. If Bush makes real tort reform and class action litigation reform campaign issues, they'll do even more for Bush.

Less than 24 hours after the attack took place, Tom Clancy wants Senator John Edwards to explain the exact details of how he thinks the US should respond to the 9/11 attack? That is crazy. We didn't even know for sure who committed the attacks. Shouldn't the response depend on the perpertrator? (If the attackers were Russian terrorists, would we have invaded Russia? What if they were part of a US militia?)

Sure, Edwards is a little vague, but Bush's speech was vague too. It tooks weeks for the administration to outline specific steps. Unless Edwards was doing something crazy on video that I can't get from the transcript (sucking him thumb, or picking his nose perhaps) his comments seem pretty reasonable considering the event that had taken place that morning.

Is this reader suggesting that Edwards was a veep candidate on 9/11? Or that he knew he was going to be one?

Piffle. He was there as a member of the Senate. And he was from a working group of senators (from the Intelligence, Judiciary, and Armed Services committees) who had focused in the Summer of 2001 on terrorism and the growing threat thereof-- according to a press release issued by the Kerry campaign.

The fact that he had nothing shows he was on that working group just to pad his resume.