Hawkeye Republican

Between the brazen white wristbands from Oxfam, today's Live 8 ditching announcement from Sheryl Crow, and the never-ending blustering pleas on Africa's behalf from Tony Blair, who can make heads or tails of Live 8, the upcoming G8 Summit, or...Bono?

Ah, perhaps we should summon the master of looking damn cool while wearing sunglasses indoors to dig for answers?

Interviewed on June 26th on NBC's Meet the Press via video link from Dublin, Bono had unusually high praise for President Bush- who just today doubled America's previous commitment to Africa by $674 million. Keep in mind that the US is already commited to a figure of over $3 billion (which was tripled under the Bush administration).

I think he's done an incredible job, his administration, on AIDS. And 250,000 Africans are on anti-viral drugs. They literally owe their lives to America. In one year that's been done.

Bono continued to comment on how he loves and believes in America and how it upsets him when others claim America is not doing enough.

So what are we doing for Africa?

Instead of outright funding corrupt and oppressive governments by forgiving debt by the boatload and dropping dollars into militarized headquarters, the Bush Administration has created the Millennium Challenge Account. Through a set of criteria, the program rewards poor nations that invest in the education and health care of their citizens, fights corruption and promotes good governance. Accountability- what a novel idea.

According to Bono (who is now like my favorite person in the world- sorry Tony Blair), President Bush's Millennium Challenge is actually a good idea. Wait- hold the horses. Bush...good idea...entertainment industry...brain combusting... Speaking of the widespread corruption in Africa, Bono commented:

This is the number one issue, and there's no way around it. That's what's so clever about President Bush's Millennium Challenge. It was start-up money for new democracies. It was giving increases of aid flows only to countries that are tackling corruption...this is new, targeted aid.

Instead of a "Make Poverty History" armband (hex on you Lance Armstrong!), I'm going to buy Joshua Tree, write a $25 check to a responsible African aid agency and swing by Starbucks to buy a cup of fair trade Kenyan blend. I will-with much chagrin-watch Live 8, but only because I heart Bono.

UPDATE: Laura's favorite blogs are no posted on the left-side bar. Take a look - they're well worth the time!

Following the Supreme Court's disasterious Kelo ruling, a developer based in California has decided to put Justice David Souter's family where his opinion is. Logan Darrow has planned a hotel and museum documenting the "loss of freedom in America" on Souter's two-story colonial farmhouse. Using the same logic that Souter joined in the 5-4 decision, Darrow is saying that his hotel would do more for the community of Weare, N.H., than Souter's home. What is infinitely better than this mere publicity stunt is that the officials in Weare are actually taking this seriously.

"Am I taking this seriously? But of course," said Charles Meany, Weare's code enforcement officer. "In lieu of the recent Supreme Court decision, I would imagine that some people are pretty much upset. If it is their right to pursue this type of end, then by all means let the process begin."

I believe that Meany really meant "In light of..." instead of "In lieu of..." in that previous statement, but as my friend Seth pointed out, what he really, really meant to say was, "Souter's not one of us, so if this can get rid of him and I can get elected state senator, let the process begin."

Oh, I do love poetic justice when it's not directed at me.

EXACTLY!: When it comes to Barack Obama, Peggy Noonan hits the nail on the head.

O'CONNOR'S NOT IMMUNE: Justice Kennedy's not the only one the media must point out as a Reagan appointee. From the Associated Press:

"Souter was joined in his opinion by other members of the liberal bloc – Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer, as well as Reagan appointee Sandra Day O'Connor, who provided the swing vote. "

What, no mention of Justice Souter being a Bush appointee?

And yes, we're still waiting for the media to refer to Justice Stephen Breyer, the critical fifth vote allowing the Ten Commandments in public places, as "Clinton appointee Stephen Breyer".

THEN AGAIN: If I'm going to mention Lee v. Weisman, then perhaps the prediction on the Ten Commandments case should be 6-3, since Justice O'Connor concurred with Justice Kennedy on Lee.

SENATOR BADASS, R-OKLAHOMA: An excerpt from Robert Novak's latest column. I added the bold face for emphasis:

CHILDREN'S CRUSADE

In the office of freshman Republican Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina, lobbyists burst into tears Tuesday when they heard bad news about prospects for a bill they were pushing. That extraordinary reaction can be explained by the fact that the "lobbyists" were children.

The Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation sent groups of children, some as young as age 5, to lobby senators for federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. The children were in Washington to attend the foundation's Children's Congress. In order for any child to attend, each parent had to promise, in writing, support for the organization's stem cell research position.

The sobbing in DeMint's office came after a lengthy explanation by the senator's aides of why he opposes killing human embryos for research purposes. Another freshman Republican, Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, avoided dramatics by coming out of his inner office and giving the children a simple "No."

Coburn's going to be very interesting to watch over the next six years, to say the least!

PREDICTIONS, ANYONE?: Barry, Laura, and Mark, I'm curious to hear your predictions on the Supreme Court's upcoming ruling on the Ten Commandments in public places. Will Anthony Kennedy continue his leftward trend, or does he throw a bone to the conservatives on this one? I'm going with the former: I envision another 5-4 decision on this one, with Stevens writing the opinion. Scalia should have a scathing dissent!

While I'm on the topic of Kennedy, I wish the media would stop the practice of calling him "a Reagan appointee" in every news story on the Supreme Court. It's obviously their way of implicitly labeling him a conservative and thereby branding his critics on the right as ultra-conservatives.

Lastly, Laura, I'm jealous of your meeting Thomas' clerks. EXTREMELY jealous.

Postscript: Justice Kennedy, after all, wrote the opinion in Lee v. Weisman, which ruled clergy offering prayers at graduation ceremonies unconstitutional.

ANCHORS REVEALED: I'm at Borders yesterday drinking a coffee while looking at the magazines when I find it sticking out like a sore thumb: Radar, with President Bush placing a medal on Paris Hilton (the picture is digitally altered, of course) on the cover. Always a sucker for the literary mastery that is Radar, I could not resist a moment to flip through the latest issue.

The article of interest this month is the revealing story of TV's dumbest anchors. It's a definite read! Here's a sampling:

Ann Curry's labeled one of TV's dumbest for her awful interviews. This is best shown by Ann Curry's brain teaser she asked an interviewee, "What if [Fidel] Castro never dies?"

Aaron Brown apparently considers himself the face of CNN. Unfortunately for you, Aaron, no one watches CNN, so even if you're the face, nobody would know!

Surprisingly, Linda Vestor wins an award for being less dumb than one (including me!) would think. Vestor is a Fulbright scholar who speaks Farsi. She only plays dumb on TV.

Inside the Supreme Court...

I was planning to post a deep commentary about the dangers the Supreme Court's nearly unfathomable Kelo ruling. However, I think you men have done a tremendous job voicing many of my concerns (essentially, I might add something later).

That being said, I was actually at the Supreme Court a few hours after the ruling. I had an opportunity to speak with all four of Justice Thomas' law clerks. They seemed sad- still wearing stylish pink ties- but, very, very sad pink ties.

It is widely acknowledged that voter apathy is a major problem in the United States. Left-leaning groups like Rock the Vote encourage young people to express their deep-held, unspoken convictions through Nikka Costa concerts and "I Heart Social Security" trucker hats. Seriously- they even have "awareness bracelets" (thanks Lance Armstrong).

But what about our poor brothers across the Atlantic who do not have MoveOn.org or Rock the Vote to lean on in times that may require extra incentives for voters? What about those downtrodden countries that cannot rely upon free concerts and rally appearances by the Dixie Chicks, Dave Matthews, and all of Hollywood to articulate the importance of voting to the electorate?

Well, it seems that if you do not have an entrenched liberal base of celebrities to fall back on, you can always give away a Hyundai.

Or at least, that's the state of things in Bulgaria. Although this voting incentive is not quite on scale with previous attempts by the English Parliament (which round election time pays for beer mats to be distributed to local pubs emblazoned with the bold statement "I drink, therefore I vote"), the Bulgarian Government is getting pretty close.

I wonder if Aristotle would approve...

But then again, maybe voters have reached a point where they feel that the precious time they take to cast a vote- to choose their representatives- deserves entry into a lotto for a Sainsbury's certificate (at least in England it apparently does).

Clearly, "getting out the vote" should be an important goal during every election cycle. Political awareness and debate is an important facet of any free, democratic society. After all, a democratic election is designed to represent the will of the people- that is, if people vote. So what if people- as is the case here and in Europe- choose not to vote? Shouldn't the government be responsible for concocting some scheme to remedy the ails of free society?

But what is worth sacrificing in the process?

Despite all the talk of corruption and elected officials who act more like tenured professors than statesmen, there is still an intangible righteousness in American voting. Despite the aberrations of Bush v. Gore and Cook County (depending upon the political party it may be a bit more than an aberration), every vote is supposed to count in our system. Every vote is supposed to be a free will expression of an American's wish for the future. The right to vote is a tremendous privilege that underpins our Republic.

I'd love a free car too. We all would. But, Bulgaria's efforts to revitalize the electorate smacks too much of bribery. Besides, I'd rather have a beer mat.

Indeed, the Supreme Court's ruling was atrocious to say the least. Earlier last week, the high court was busy allowing drug companies more leeway to infringe on patents, and now they're basically allowing governments to seize homes and businesses with almost unlimited authority. The WSJ wrote a fairly interesting editorial on it.

Additionally, I agree with you all that Congress's meddling in the Schiavo case was the wrong thing to do, but we should be clear about what they actually did. The Congress allowed a federal court to hear the case. This wasn't an effort to usurp power over the will or change the case through legislation. It was an effort to allow a federal court to hear the case, which ironically is the same right given to someone on death row. As it turned out, the federal court didn't overturn the state court's ruling, so nothing really happened. I think the action by Congress has fallen prey to demagoguery. The Congress was well within its Constitutional right to do what it did. One can disagree with meddling in the matter, which I do, but I think it is misinformed to say Congress was acting in an unconstitutional manner.

A few more things...last night I was flipping back and forth from Game 7 of the NBA Finals to the Senate hearing on Iraq. Luckily, it was halftime when Senator Kennedy had his time for questions, because he was absolutely killed by Rumsfeld. He gave the ole' quagmire line, and the Secretary explained that it wasn't that situation at all and that the generals at the table would back him up (which they did). It was quite interesting!

Additionally, General Abizaid noted that confidence among U.S. forces in the field "has never been higher." If only the political mood in Washington and the media would follow suit. "I've never seen the lack of confidence greater," said Abizaid.

So why is there this disparity between the attitudes of the actual people doing the work in Iraq who really know what's going on, with people at home who don't see the progress being made on a daily basis? Maybe the media and mainstream Democrats could tell us something about that! The fact is that people are being pessimistic because it's a hell of a lot easier to be pessimistic than optimistic. If I write a column on how bad things are, I look like a concerned, informed citizen. If I write a column on how there's progress being made, then I'm naive and irrationally idealistic. Democrats have an inclination to be negative about everything and that's why they're losing. As I said yesterday in my column, they are allowing their irrational hatred of Bush to cloud the clear importance of winning in Iraq.

I AGREE: All the politicians who went back for Schiavo deserve to be ousted, no doubt. It's just with Harkin you know you're getting a liberal. The Republicans have been misbranding, and it's frustrating. I also agree with you, Kevin, about the Supreme Court's ruling today about eminent domain. That's a slap in the face to anyone who wants the government out of people's bedrooms--literally.

WHILE YOU'RE STOMPING SENATE REPUBLICANS: Barry, would you make sure to include Tom Harkin in your rebuke of the senate involving itself with Terri Schiavo? He was one of the leading advocates of senate intervention.

SUPREME LETDOWN: The Supreme Court is at it with another 5-4 decision determined by Justice Anthony Kennedy siding with the four liberal justices. This time, you're house is no longer safe.

Look, I understand the idea of eminent domain. The social utility of building a highway to serve society certainly outweighs the social utility of the strips of farmland that would replace it. However, I doubt that the founding fathers envisioned a town destroying lower-class homes to make room for an IKEA. When people cannot feel secure in their investment in their home, more social utility is lost than any highway (or IKEA or Trump casino) could yield.

Of course, you'll never see eminent domain used to bulldoze middle-class houses in, say, the Main Line suburbs of Philadelphia. It'll only be used on those inconveniently located houses owned by lower-class people.

TOLERABLE MODERATE: My recent posts ripping Jim Leach may give the impression that I'm an extremist conservative looking to purge the Republican Party of all moderates. Not true.

Lincoln Chafee is one moderate I like. Sure, he votes with the liberals on many of the close votes, but not nearly as often as the liberal Democrat who would surely replace Chafee in the senate. After all, Rhode Island is a state rivaled in its liberal leanings by Massachusetts and Vermont. A person as moderate as Chafee still struggles to win enough votes to stay in office - and he very well may not win in 2006.

Chafee is one shrewd politician. He's a Republican, yet he plays the cards perfectly to still show his independence enough to give the perception that he's above the political fray - his only hope for having any support. That's why I'm grateful that the White House is helping in getting Chafee another six-year term to help maintain the Republican majority.

The New York Times' Thomas Friedman has written an accutely aware diagnosis of the state of the Bush presidency. He writes in June 22nd's Times, "In part because President Bush has no heir apparent, his second term is drifting aimlessly." How right you are, Mr. Friedman. You can read the whole column HERE.

In other news, the coarseness of American political debate continues unabated. John Hostettler of Indiana is the latest idiot. On Monday, he had to withdraw words to avoid being censured by the House for saying that Democrats "denigrate and demonize" Christians. This man's only claim to fame is his zealot-like promotion of a ban on same-sex marriage and his promotion of public displays of the Ten Commandments. My only question is what kind of cracker elects someone like Hostettler to Congress? The people of the Eighth District of Indiana are apparently that type of cracker. People like Hostettler give a bad name to all Republicans and why the leadership gives him any time on the floor is absolutely amazing to me. I am absolutely sick of the religious conservatives in Congress playing to their base at the expense of good legislation. Terri Schiavo is the major case in point. If the Democrats had their act together, or had any ideas whatsoever, all the Republicans who went back and voted for that legislation would be strung up in '06. That was not a conservative thing to do, by the definition of the word. That was a religiously liberal thing to do, and they turned out to be completely wrong.

While we're on the subject, I think there ought to be a new political classification. The "religious liberal." Hostettler would be part of that group. These folks are not conservative, I'm afraid. A conservative, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, is "characterized by a tendency to preserve or keep intact or unchanged; preservative" and "implied disavowel of...reactionary tendencies." A liberal, by contrast, is someone "favourable to constitutional changes and legal or administrative reforms." So let's take a look at this. So-called "religious conservatives" have promoted a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage and flag burning. And they've had a special session to address one issue that intrudes on the rights of a family (Schiavo). These are liberal policies. When are we going to get back to the days of Barry Goldwater, who said -- albeit at the end of his career -- that government ought to stay out of people's pocket books and bedrooms? We need to balance our books and stay out of people's personal lives. I'm going to be writing a column about this phenomena in an upcoming Daily Iowan.

In the meantime, though, you can read my take on the level of political discourse this week at the DI.

Obi-Wan Blair, You're Our Only Hope: The EU Should Embrace the UK Presidency
A few hours ago in Brussels...

It is time to give ourselves a reality check. To receive the wake-up call. The people are blowing the trumpets round the city walls. Are we listening? Have we the political will to go out and meet them so that they regard our leadership as part of the solution not the problem?

Life according to Blair: Europe's Social Model? Failing. Europe's Economy? Failing. The Political Elite's Ability to Measure the Popular Sentiment of the Electorate? Well, you get the jist. Read Blair's speech here (insert accent).

HOUSEKEEPING: Because there are now four of us posting on the site, I decided to remove the links on the left side of the page, since they represent only me. Also, as my brother Adam pointed out to me multiples times, many of the links didn't work anyone. However, a list of recommended links may come back one day.

I've already altered the page to allow viewers to leave comments on our posts. Hopefully this will add another element of interest and debate to the page!

UPDATE ON LIBERALS:

PETA against Shriners, because helping kids with cancer is so last year. Next on list: Snow White and her Seven Dwarves...they must be liberated!!!

BIDEN'S IN; DEMAND FOR NILE KINNOCK SPEECHES SKYROCKETS: Everyone's favorite plagiarist is going to take another stab at the Democratic nomination for the presidency. Made me wonder what effect the news had on shares of Biden on tradesports.com, an online futures market. Surprisingly, shares in Biden dropped over six cents on the dollar to 5.8 cents per dollar. Meanwhile, Virginia governor Mark Warner has risen another penny. Though far off Hillary, shares in Warner are second highest in value.

He's got the right qualities for the job: he's a governor, he's from the South, he's a moderate, he's well-spoken, and he's raising a boatload of money. Sounds like Bill Clinton, but without the baggage of scandals. Mark Warner will be the anti-Hillary that moderate Democrats like and liberal Democrats fixated on winning will tolerate. As much as it pains me to say it, I really think this guy is going to be our 44th president.

MORE LEACH: Barry, you raise a good point: When an entity pulls its funding from another entity, it loses its stake in that entity. However, when the giver refuses to put any stipulations on the funds it gives, it has little stake. When someone invests in a corporation, he puts in money with the expectation of a profit; if no profit is produced, he withdraws his investment. The other source of external funding, loans, provides much more explicit demands: you get the funds only if you agree to pay back a stated amount of interest. To refuse to let the United States put some stipulations on its investments, making us nothing less than a blank check, is disappointing.

But my dislike of Leach goes far beyond this vote. It's his vote banning drilling in ANWR; its his vote for McCain-Feingold; it's his vote against barring funds for the international court; its his vote against the war in Iraq, followed by his outspoken criticism of the war; its his vote against ending the death tax.

To me, there are two types of moderates: There's moderates like Lincoln Chafee, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, and (to a lesser extent) Arlen Specter. They're the moderates who have to be moderate to have a chance at reelection. They don't bug me too much because Republicans almost certainly can't do better in those states. On the other hand, there are moderates in places where conservatives can win: John McCain, Chuck Hagel, and Lindsey Graham are the big ones here. Jim Leach falls into that second category. Sure, downtown Iowa City is wildly liberal, but outside of Iowa City the rest of Leach's second district is like the rest of Iowa. That's why I just cannot be a supporter of Jim Leach.

Glad to see everyone getting involved in the site!

In other news (I'll save my commentary on Jim Leach for a bit later)...

We all know that Washington is a ridiculously interconnected city. When someone sends out a particularly colorful e-mail, gossip-hungry interns descend upon it with greater fury than a red-faced Ted Kennedy would show at the thought of slashing an entitlement program. Today, I received such an e-mail. This particular unfortunate correspondence has been on the D.C. inbox circuit for over a year. It tells the important tale that despite big money and the best schooling, nothing can substitute for good manners. Enjoy!

Overall, I think Leach is still an asset to the party even in spite of his shaky voting record.
I'm going to write a column on this, so you can check it out on Thursday. I don't think you'll disagree with much of it, Kevin.

As for Barry, you were going well until your final paragraph.

With the UN's current mentality, I think assuming it can reform itself without a little tough love from the U.S. is not real credible. Every reasonable person believes that the UN's fundamental purpose is important. However, I don't think any reasonable person can say its been effective in confronting security threats around the world. I also don't think that taxpayers should continually be asked to subsidize an organization on our soil that has shown itself to be systematically work against our interests. I think your analogy would be more on the mark if it read something like the following: After having our ball continually misused by others, after having the rules continuously rigged against us by our own teammates and opponents, after having the umpire not enforce the rules of the game...then we take our ball and go home.

Don't get me wrong, I don't support getting out of the UN, or shutting it down. All I want is some accountability and if that means a little less money, then so be it. It should also be mentioned that money is not the issue, but rather political courage. How would more money have prevented the oil-for-food scandal? How would more money cause the UN Security council to enforce its resolutions? Too many people get the mentality that more money will always solve problems and tend to dismiss the functional and systematic shortcomings within an organization.

A few more points...

It's not right to assume that if the U.S. would just become a "model citizen" in the UN it would somehow send this wonderful message causing it to reform itself. If the U.S. didn't invade Iraq, how would that have influenced Libya or Sudan's status on the HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL? How would ratifying the Kyoto Treaty have prevented the oil-for-food scandal? You think countries in the General Assembly weren't systematically working against our interests (and thus the original intent of the UN) before we invaded Iraq? Come On!

You also say use the phrase "going to war for what turned out to be no reason at all." Are you serious about that statement? No reason at all? What speeches have you been listening to for the past two years? You may disagree with the war, but saying it had no purpose is utterly ridiculous and misinformed.

And with respect to Iraq, it should be noted that the U.S. simply carried out the consequences of Resolution 1441 that was passed 15-0 by the UN Security Council. If anything, US action in Iraq should have strengthened the UN's credibility. Resolution 1441 required Saddam to comply with weapon's inspectors. He didn't for the most part! So, what were we to do? Allow the 17th UN resolution condemning Saddam Hussein to go by with no accountability thereby making the UN's word seem even less credible? Or, act on the "serious consequences" that were laid out in the resolution?

The bottom line is that France and Germany were never going to support us. The left's been quick to take issue with the political motives of President Bush, but they never want to talk about the domestic politics in other countries that were shaping the amount of foreign support we had for the war.

That's it for now!

Kevin,

I think that your characterizations of Rep. Leach are a bit off the mark. First, look at his records on procedural votes. Leach rarely, if ever, votes against his party when it comes to allowing certain issues to proceed. Rules that govern consideration of bills (which usually give the shaft to the Democrats, quite honestly) are what I'm talking about here. Once they pass, it's next to impossible for the underlying legislation to fail. Leach also doesn't vote against the party when the final outcome is in doubt. The Whips knew what was up, and I don't think that people get upset with him because he usually lets Roy Blunt's office know how he's voting.

The bigger question about the final Roll Call was why Nancy Pelosi was among 18 Democrats who didn't vote. What kind of party leader misses a vote on a subject as important as United Nations reform, especially when a member of your own state delegation has a substitute amendment under consideration? Now, many legislators get "Leaves of Absences" to account for their activities when they're going to miss recorded votes. And as we all know, missing votes without reason can lead to certain questions being asked around election time. Ms. Bono of California, for example, got a Leave of Absence to attend her daughter's graduation, which is why she didn't vote for or against the measure. Who knows where Pelosi was -- perhaps she was heading back to her district to attend the marriage of former California Governor Moonbeam? The main point is that the Democrats' house isn't in order, and this missed vote is yet another symptom of the disease.

The underlying legislation is still worthless, though, Kevin. I agree with Congressman Leach, as well as Reps. Ray LaHood of Illinois (hardly a bleeding-heart) and Christopher Shays of Connecticut. When you pull out funding from an organization you immediately lose your stake in it. It's like being a part of a fraternity, not paying your dues, but then demanding that you keep your vote. It's a lot like when you're little kids, the kid who owns the ball gets upset that the game isn't going his way, then takes the ball and goes home. If we want to reform the organization, then we have to be model citizens in it. Going to war for what turned out to be no reason at all isn't the best way of doing that, not respecting allies isn't the best way of doing that, and not paying dues in an organization isn't the best way of reforming it. It's particularly sad that Henry Hyde's name is attached to such a total piece of spoilt kids bloviating.

UPDATE: Jim Leach is at it again today. Leach voted against the United Nations Reform Act that cuts funds to the United Nations unless it reforms itself. Thankfully, the bill passed in spite of "Republican" Leach, with eight Democrats joining the good guys on this. Let's face it: Jim Leach is more Leonard Boswell than Jim Nussle.

Mark and Barry, where do you fall on Leach? I would ask Laura, but I know she's in love with the guy.

RINO SIGHTING: Jim Leach, "R"-Iowa, is up to his usual tricks again. The same "Republican" who voted against the war in Iraq, voted against the Republican budget, and voted against repealing the death tax, examples of just a few of his more revealing votes, voted in favor of an amendment to weaken the Patriot Act. This was no regular old procedural matter, either. It was an amendment brought by Bernie Sanders, the self-proclaimed socialist from Vermont!

It raises the question of what's more baffling: That Iowa Republicans by-and-large still love Leach, or that Iowa City liberals still consider him part of the right-wing machine?

WE'RE BACK: HawkeyeRepublican took a break from the blogging world for quite a while. Due to the stresses of classes and everything else going on, I took a break from the page and never got back into it.

Those days are over, and it looks like HawkeyeRepublican is making a comeback. Except this time, there are more people on the page. Now, fellow Hawkeyes and Republicans Barry Pump, Mark Simons, and Laura Westercamp will be blogging on the page, and more Hawkeye Republicans may join in the forum. Expect many changes to the site in the near future to reflect the new look. Personally, I hope it will resemble the National Review's Corner

The Gitmo debate (including Dick Durbin's recent rant), John Bolton, the filibuster, impending Supreme Court vacancies, and more - this site should be the source of interesting debate and discussion! Keep checking back for updates!