If you think of the pounding the Democrats took 16 years ago in 1994, one thing that comes to mind quickly is the GOP Contract with America.

If nothing changed between now and November and the Republicans romp the Democrats the way they are predicted to do, what will come to mind 16 years from now is ‘Tea Party.”

Today the GOP will release their Pledge To America. A review of a draft of the document shows it is modeled somewhat after the Declaration of Independence, which started with a statement of beliefs and followed with a list of grievances against King George. The pledge does the same but then adds a plan for repair of the US government.

The document doesn’t break new ground; it states what Republicans have always said. So why do it now? Here are some ideas (what are yours?):

The GOP wants to steal the Tea Party thunder (cynical); or

The GOP is finally moving toward the Tea Party (less cynical); or

The GOP honestly thinks the Pledge will help them win (deferential).

Bonus question: When I’m winning in court, I stop speaking. Might the pledge be misquoted/misinterpreted to give the Dems talking points?

More on this topic:

SMITH > The GOP's "Pledge to America"

RAHE > Boehner Throws Down the Gauntlet

Ann Coulter has a rip-roaring column up, arguing that the social issues are winners for conservatives even though the media and the establishment insist they're not. It's worth reading, and I suspect she's about 80 percent right. But I can't help thinking that the black/white, yes/no nature of media debate militates against wisdom in these matters. Should gays be allowed to marry or not? Should abortion be legal or not? Should there be prayer in school or not? The left always plays these issues as matters of freedom and equality, the right as questions of morality and strong communities. Am I alone in feeling caught in the middle?

What I want, in all of these issues, is liberty. I want our representatives to decide these things, not our judges; I want them decided locally not federally; and I want them subject to change by referendum - by voting the bums out and bringing in new bums to make new laws. This system works. Its failure to defeat Jim Crow is anomalous - a hard case that makes bad law. Racial rights should not serve as the model for every argument that follows. The Constitution should.

The question, as Thomas Sowell is always reminding us, is not right or wrong - it's who decides? It ought to be the people's representatives in their communities. Is anyone running on that platform, I wonder?

Over at the Weekly Standard, Jay Cost notes that according to a new poll by SurveyUSA, Kristin Gillibrand and her Republican opponent Joe DioGuardi are neck to neck in the battle for Hillary Clinton's old Senate seat. According to SurveyUSA:

In the Special Election to fill the final 2 years of Hillary Rodham Clinton's term, incumbent Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand and former Congressman Republican Joe DioGuardi today finish effectively even, with Gillibrand's nominal 1-point lead being within the survey's theoretical margin of sampling error.

Cost notes that "SurveyUSA has had some atrocious numbers for Democrats this year, and they must really be hoping that the polling outfit is wide of the mark. It has a good track record, though."

John McCormack, also at TWS, thinks that with Gillibrand's seat in play, it's a "real possibility" for Republicans to take the Senate in 2010.

Gail Sheehy over at The Daily Beast reports that President Obama couldn't fill seats at a New York City fundraiser for Democrats last night. Held in the Roosevelt Hotel's ballroom, which can seat 650, the fundraiser only attracted 450 guests, despite the fire sale on tickets ($50!). And even at that, the president was heckled by his guests!

Watch Obama being heckled here:

Sheehy writes,

Who would have thought that six weeks before a cliffhanger election, President Obama would have to reach down to the D list to fill a room to listen to him? Most of us low rollers arrived early to see President Obama up close and personal. Our tickets for the general reception at the Roosevelt Hotel in New York were only $100. Some thought the email invitation was a joke. Some bought tickets for $50 from their desperate Democratic committeeman. Some bought the same day.

...

Only after I received four email invitations and two personal calls imploring me to come did I call Speaker Pelosi’s office to check the admission price. “You mean, to be in the room with the President of the United States is now on fire sale for $100?”

”Yup.”

“How long do we get?”

“Half hour.”

“How many $100 givers have rsvp’d?”

“Mmmm 250.”

“Do we need to line up early to get in?”

“That’s not necessary. Everybody will get in.”

This does not bode well for Democrats.

Last night, a friend sent me a draft of the Pledge to America that the House Republicans will be releasing today. It rewards study.

Back in early August, I wrote a lengthy post entitled John Boehner’s Testing Time, arguing in some detail that we live in a critical time in which the ordinary rules of politics do not apply. In ordinary circumstances, we are condemned to a politics focused largely on patronage – in which political struggle revolves around finding the means to satisfy party constituents. In such circumstances, the dynamic I described in Soft Despotism, Democracy’s Drift pertains. Federal subsidies grow and grow, and with them come mandates binding the recipients – local and state governments, corporations, universities, and NGOs – in ways that gradually, steadily eliminate their freedom to maneuver and subvert political liberty.

In critical times – such as the moment in which we now live – it is possible to transcend the politics of patronage and ascend to a politics of principle. This is the imperative that the Tea Party is enforcing. What is needed, I added, is statesmanship – an effort by politicians equipped with a modicum of genius to unite a party around a set of principles. I then suggested that John Boehner and the Republican leadership in the House draft a new Contract with America like the one presented in 1994 by Newt Gingrich but improved in the following way. Newt’s Contract was a laundry list. I suggested that Boehner and his merry men ground their call in America’s first principles.

And that, I am very pleased to say, is what they have done with their Pledge to America. This document has three virtues. It gives the Republicans a platform on which to run in November; it reminds the American people of the manner in which we have departed from the principles enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and embodied in the Constitution, and it binds those elected to act on their pledge.

In politics, as Abraham Lincoln argued, public sentiment is everything. Our task is to reconfigure public sentiment in an enduring fashion by effecting a return to first principles – and that, thank God, is what John Boehner and the Republican leaderships are attempting to do.

More on this topic:

SMITH > The GOP's "Pledge to America"

DE SENO > Is the GOP Pledge Designed to Steal Tea Party Thunder?

At a hardware store in Sterling, Virginia today, House Republicans are unveiling their 21-page “Pledge to America,” the 2.0 version of Newt Gingrich’s 1994 “Contract With America.” In 1994, Gingrich’s Contract helped Republicans gain control of the House for the first time in 40 years. Will the “Pledge” deliver its own dazzling results for 2010?

Like Newt’s Contract, the Pledge is a plan of action for the next congressional term. CBS reports:

The agenda will focus on five areas: jobs, spending, health care, national security and reforming Congress itself. Within these five general areas there is a breakdown of about four points per topic, making it roughly a 20-point plan.

Check out the full text of the Pledge here.

Rep. Paul Ryan has said of the plan:

Putting spending, putting the policy of economic growth in place and cleaning up the way Congress works is not only a stark contrast to this president and this Congress...It's a contrast to the way we conducted ourselves a decade ago. We spent to much money. We lost our way

There has been some debate among conservatives about the pledge. Note that the Pledge is light on social issues.

National Review gives it a thumbs up:

The inevitable question will be: Is the pledge as bold as the Contract?

The answer is: The pledge is bolder. The Contract with America merely promised to hold votes on popular bills that had been bottled up during decades of Democratic control of the House. The pledge commits Republicans to working toward a broad conservative agenda that, if implemented, would make the federal government significantly smaller, Congress more accountable, and America more prosperous.

While Erick Erickson over at RedState gives it a thumbs down:

Perhaps the most ridiculous thing to come out of Washington since George McClellan....These 21 pages tell you lots of things, some contradictory things, but mostly this: it is a serious of compromises and milquetoast rhetorical flourishes in search of unanimity among House Republicans because the House GOP does not have the fortitude to lead boldly in opposition to Barack Obama.

What's your verdict?

Here are some bullet points from the Pledge, via CBS:

Jobs:

- Stop job-killing tax hikes

- Allow small businesses to take a tax deduction equal to 20 percent of their income

- Require congressional approval for any new federal regulation that would add to the deficit

- Repeal small business mandates in the new health care law.

Cutting Spending:

- Repeal and Replace health care

- Roll back non-discretionary spending to 2008 levels before TARP and stimulus (will save $100 billion in first year alone)

- Establish strict budget caps to limit federal spending going forward

- Cancel all future TARP payments and reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

Reforming Congress:

- Will require that every bill have a citation of constitutional authority

- Give members at least 3 days to read bills before a vote

Defense:

- Provide resources to troops

- Fund missile defense

- Enforce sanctions in Iran

More on this topic:

DE SENO > Is the GOP Pledge Designed to Steal Tea Party Thunder?

RAHE > Boehner Throws Down the Gauntlet

Mike Pence (R-Indiana) gave a talk at Hillsdale on Monday night, which I attended. His topic was “The Presidency and the Constitution”; and, as I report in a piece just posted on Andrew Breitbart’s BigGovernment.com, it was genuinely impressive. Pence is a thoughtful, principled man – and I suspect that he may be planning a Presidential bid. He has one drawback: he has never held executive office -- and, as I argued in a series of posts archived here, this nearly always matters a great deal. He nonetheless bears close watching.

UPDATE: Pence's speech has been posted online.

Speaking before the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs committee, senior national security officials said that homegrown terrorism in this country is on the rise, as evidenced by a "recent spike" in terrorist cases.

As ABC News points out, in the last 18 months, around 63 Americans have been arrested or convicted of terrorist charges--an extraordinary number. In this news segment Diane Sawyer noted that "The danger is as grave as it has been since September 11th."

At the committee hearing, National Counterterrorism Chief Michael Leiter focused on the intensity of the threat:

During the past year our nation has dealt with the most significant developments in the terrorist threat to the Homeland since 9/11...The attack threats are now more complex, and the diverse array of threats tests our ability to respond, and makes it difficult to predict where the next attack may come.

Meanwhile, Department of Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano, spoke about the rise of homegrown terrorism.

Homegrown terrorists represent a new and changing facet of the terrorist threat...To be clear, by homegrown, I mean terrorist operatives who are U.S. persons, and who were radicalized in the United States.

And FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III also picked up the theme of homegrown terrorism, saying:

Groups affiliated with al Qaeda are now actively targeting the United States and looking to use Americans or Westerners who are able to remain undetected by heightened security measures...It appears domestic extremism and radicalization appears to have become more pronounced based on the number of disruptions and incidents.

Apparently, al Qaeda will continue to attempt smaller scale attacks in the United States--a la the Times Square and Christmas Day bombers. But, Napolitano warned, "Unlike large-scale, coordinated, catastrophic attacks, executing smaller-scale attacks requires less planning and fewer pre-operational steps...Accordingly, there are fewer opportunities to detect such an attack before it occurs."

Slate is running a partly thoughtful and partly confused article by Dahlia Lithwick about the planned execution of Teresa Lewis. She observes that there's no particularly serious reason to believe that Lewis has been the victim of a miscarriage of justice:

She bought the guns and ammunition used in the murders. She allegedly left the back door open for the killers and waited more than an hour to call 911 while her husband bled to death. She ransacked her dying husband's pockets for money she then split with the triggermen. ... There was no evidence of systemic misconduct or bias in the case against her. She's white. She doesn't claim to be innocent. But I still can't find a lot of people calling for her execution to take place as scheduled on Thursday.

And she suggests--correctly, I'm sure--that the lack of enthusiasm for killing her reflects a general social revulsion toward the idea of applying the death penalty to women, however grim their crimes. The confused part is the conclusion she draws from this:

But who's really going to argue for gender parity in state-sanctioned execution? Is anyone out there celebrating Lewis' shattering of another glass ceiling this week? Hard to imagine even the staunchest feminist insisting that if women commit 10 percent of the murders, they should compose 10 percent of those executed for it. The better feminist response to the infrequency of capital punishment for women should probably be to fight to see that it's equally rare for men.

The first and last sentences of this paragraph are clearly in contradiction; it seems Lithwick herself is calling for gender parity in executions. She's just calling for the parity to be achieved by reducing the number of men executed.

The death penalty disturbs me very greatly. I'm entirely persuaded that unbearable miscarriages of justice happen frequently. Recent advances in forensics have made this particularly clear. But I have no idea how any other punishment could be considered justice in a case like this one, for example. And I'm also persuaded by the evidence that the death penalty is indeed a very serious deterrent, one that as such saves lives.

I don't really have a position I can fully defend on the death penalty, for or against. But of all the arguments that might sway me, ones deriving from the ideal of "gender parity" would be pretty low on the list. Ancient social taboos against doing violence to women aren't something I'm keen to eradicate. If we feel no special enthusiasm for killing women, and if that leads to disparities in the rate at which we execute them, that's fine with me.

Over at Commentary, John Podhoretz has some interesting thoughts on Delaware Senate nominee Christine O'Donnell.

He talks how anyone who'd written an op-ed in the 1990s was asked to show up on one of the many cable news shows that proliferated then. Christine O'Donnell did her share of television at the time -- and she's having to defend herself against some of her youthful utterances. Podhoretz says that Bill Maher used her on his show Politically Incorrect so often because "She could hold down the conservative chair and, to be blunt, say embarrassing, stupid, and excessive things that would discredit the very cause she was supposed to be there to represent."

Unfortunately, as O'Donnell's behavior 15 years ago and now attest, there is little evidence of seriousness of purpose (like her workplace lawsuit in particular against the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, in which she demanded damages because she had trouble sleeping) and a great deal of evidence of her fundamental silliness. Booking and canceling television interviews and bouncing around confusedly in the wake of her victory have not inspired confidence in the voters of Delaware. After the election, assuming the tsunami doesn't manage miraculously to carry her over, she will have a second career on the conservative circuit blaming the mainstream media for harming her candidacy.

But there would be no Christine O'Donnell without the mainstream media, and it will be to their precincts she will in all likelihood decamp in the wake of her sudden fame, turning the ideas she claims to embody into a dismissible caricature, just as she did in her youth. The same, by the way, will be true if she wins; she will be the first new senator liberal reporters turn to for a quote on something controversial, in hopes that she will step in it. The problem is not the ideas, or the Tea Party. The problem is O'Donnell and her path to the spotlight.

He then notes how Sean Duffy's path had similar beginnings -- first coming to public attention because he was a cast member of MTV's The Real World, of all things. But from there he went on to get married, have six children, become the district attorney of Ashland County and spent years building up enough trust to run a serious campaign in a tough district.

O'Donnell is down 14 points right now and has high unfavorables among Delaware voters. The one thing I find interesting about O'Donnell's candidacy is that she has raised so much money when there are Tea Party types in other races that are much tighter.

I must say that as a Californian, this news was music to my ears:

Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman says the budget-cutting and union-fighting tactics employed by New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie provide a perfect “roadmap” for her plans in California.

Could California end up with its very own version of Chris Christie? One can only hope.

The Boston Herald reports that the Cambridge government is issuing parking tickets illustrated with yoga poses. I am in no way joking. Motorists aren't taking to it as the city had hoped. Being normal human beings, they think it's silly and a waste of money. Government officials are surprised:

But officials say it’s about getting in touch with a deeper municipal truth: “It’s trying to debunk the idea that all parking tickets are a hostile action, because I don’t think they are,” said Susan E. Clippinger, the city’s transportation chief. “We’re not writing tickets to get somebody. We’re writing tickets to help make the city function.”

Right. The 40,000 parking tickets are part of a public art project, apparently. Government artist Daniel Peltz also created a mural of "excuses" given by drivers. Oh, and plush Denver boots. Because when the government siezes your car with the application of a boot, it feels better when it's a soft boot:

Peltz envisions “a reflection on a social situation, the human experience of giving and receiving parking tickets.” He e-mailed from Sweden: “I started this process by wondering what would happen in a world where I received them with a set of graceful postures: a clean bend at the waist, a gentle lift of the windshield wiper . . . I’m going to get the ticket either way, my only choice really is how I’m going to receive it.”

I'll say it again. This is apparently not satire. Actually, there's no way this is real, is there?

James Poulos already noted this below, but I figured it deserved a post of its own. From RealClearPolitics:

Quinnipiac...finds Paladino surging into contention. He trails by a narrow 49 percent to 43 percent margin. This is the first likely voter poll that Quinnipiac has conducted, so it is hard to determine what kind of trend there is (if any)....Conservative Rick Lazio isn’t tested [although Lazio lost to Paladino in the GOP primary, Lazio remains the nominee of the New York Conservative Party], which may result in the poll overstating how close Paladino really is. Regardless, this race isn’t looking like the blowout we’ve been seeing for most of the cycle.

There's a hearty band of New Yorkers and (like me) former New Yorkers here on Ricochet, and a lot of us have been watching the Paladino campaign for the sheer fun of it. Now it looks as though our man Carl--tough, shrewd, colorful and outrageous; in a word, just what Albany needs--might actually win.

Glory.

Is Barney Frank in danger of losing his congressional seat? Stranger things have happened. Considered a safely Democratic district, the last Republican to represent Massachusetts' 4th CD was Pehr Holmes, who left office in 1947. So it's certainly been a while. But new polling information gives Republican challenger Sean Bielat a glimmer of hope. HotAir has the scoop:

The poll, conducted for the campaign by OnMessage, shows Frank falling below the 50% mark despite the D+14 composition of his constituency. Bielat comes within nine points, even though the poll shows that he still badly trails in name recognition.

The memo from the pollster explains that Bielat could shock the world on November 2nd: "The ballot is very encouraging and shows Bielat at 38%, Frank at 48% and 13% undecided."

I had lots of contact with Seymour Martin Lipset back in the mid-1990s when I was a fellow at the Woodrow Wilson Center in D.C., and I share his liking for the two-party system. I am also an adherent -- as was he, if I remember correctly -- of the theory of critical elections.

As one approaches a critical moment, everything in the party system is in flux, as it is now, and this offers one of the two parties an opportunity to reconfigure the political universe. Most of the time, one party is dominant, and the other party plays defense. Since 1932 -- except, for a time, in the aftermath of 1980 -- the Democrats were dominant, and the Republicans played defense.

The breakdown of the system of party loyalty is a sign that we can, if we have the moxie, alter that hoary dynamic. In a sense, the Tea-Party phenomenon marks the return of Ross Perot. The Savings-and-Loan Scandal left Americans with a sense that their interests were being ignored, that the two parties had colluded against them. George W. Bush's abandonment of fiscal rectitude, followed by Barack Obama's irresponsible binge, has resurrected that species of discontent; and, in response, the Republicans appear to be turning themselves into a party of principle capable of effecting a realignment and reinvigorating the two-party system.

Marty, who was an old socialist, might not entirely like the outcome. But he would certainly enjoy watching the battle.

Sarah Palin has a new web video out in praise of the Tea Party.

Our friend Andrew Malcolm over at Top of the Ticket asks, "Is this new Sarah Palin video a campaign step?"

Watch it. See if you think it's from someone who is not running for, oh, say, the nomination for an important office from a major political party. Or laying the foundation to play a major role in that decision by assembling a following of numerous like-minded, loyal folks.

I'm convinced. I think she'll run.

I reserve my right to get angry at any and all politicians at any time for any reason, but I can't quite get worked up about President Obama thinking that he could get 4 apples for a dollar. Story here. My own mother has trouble adjusting to the changing cost of goods and we like to tease her about this. Not a fatal flaw.

Anyway, over at U.S. News & World Report, contributing editor Peter Roff notes that media coverage of this incident is very different than it would have been (or has been) for Republican presidents. This will surprise no one. To make his point, however, he repeats a common misconception:

Lest anyone accuse me of picking nits, recall back in the days when George Herbert Walker Bush was president and was shown a new type of grocery scanner that appeared to amaze and impress him. The fact that it was a new technology was no excuse; his amazement was proof that Bush, who at the time was presiding over a flagging U.S. economy, was just completely out of touch with what average Americans experience on a daily basis.

Two problems with that story, according to Snopes. One, the reporter who blew it up -- The New York Times reporter Andrew Rosenthal -- hadn't actually witnessed the event in question. Had he, he might have realized that it wasn't a normal grocery scanner but a fraud-detection one that could also read mangled bar codes and weigh groceries. This was 20 years ago, if you need reminding. Second, other reporters say that "bored" or "friendly" would be a better description of President Bush that day, rather than shocked and amazed.

Yeah, I'm a nitpicker. But it's important to get these stories right.

A colleague of mine at the Hoover Institution during his final years, the great sociologist and political scientist Seymour Martin Lipset was always a fierce champion of our political parties. Because the United States possessed only two principal parties, and because most voters remained loyal to one or the other most of the time, Marty argued, the country proved especially stable, avoiding the disruptive swings from left to right that marked many other democracies, including those, for example, of Italy, France, and even, particularly during the nineteen-seventies, Britain.

What would, I wonder, would Marty make of the situation today?

Partisan identification has been dropping for decades, but seems to have accelerated over the last decade or so, with Independents now outnumbering both Republicans and Democrats. Lurches from left to right? First Independents moved en masse to Obama. Now they’re swinging en masse to the GOP.

The ballast, in a word, has broken loose. The ship of state lists now to port, now to starboard, heeling in every wave. This is a lousy way to sail.

Which brings me, once again, to Dr. Rahe.

The present political moment delights you, Paul--of course I know that. But taking the long view—the view, let us say, not of the six weeks until election day but of the nine decades until the turn of the next century--don’t you find the erosion of the two great parties just a trifle queasy-making?

I'm not anti-elite. There's nothing in The Big Book of Elitehood that says "Congratulations! You're ready to rule by fiat" or "Welcome to a lifetime of lucrative cronyhood!" There's nothing that says "Spending a hundred million dollars to stay mayor is a sign you've arrived," or "Parlaying your scandalous run at HUD into a governorship means never having to say you're sorry."

But I can think of nothing that begs for ad hominem attacks on the ruling class quite like Mike Bloomberg endorsing Andrew Cuomo because the great Lazio-slayer Carl Paladino is -- impertinence! -- running six points behind Cuomo in the polls.

The political class represented by Cuomo and Bloomberg imagines itself fit to rule the world, not least the ruling class itself. No wonder Paladino's numbers have put the fear of God in them. The very endorsement reveals how high a risk these men are willing to run to retain their cosmic mastery. Put in close enough proximity, Cuomo and Bloomberg will implode into a black hole of self-entitlement, tragically destroying their gold-plated careers before Paladino and Co. can so much as laugh them off stage.

I know we pick on Jimmy Carter a lot here on Ricochet, but that’s just because for conservatives, he’s the gift that keeps on giving. Last night, for instance, on the Nightly News, he said that our country is more polarized now than at the time of the Civil War.

Here's the text of his remark below. The comment appears about two and a half minutes into the clip.

This country has become so polarized that it’s almost astonishing…. Not only with the red and blue states… President Obama suffers from the most polarized situation in Washington that we have ever seen – even maybe than the time of Abraham Lincoln and the initiation of the war between the states.

Here's another issue where we could see a strong Freak Power/Rube Power consensus:

"You take the family to the food court. Your wife and Pete head for tacos. You and Danny want Chinese. You look up at the menu. You look down to see what Danny wants. But you don't see Danny. Every parent knows that feeling. Imagine if he were actually abducted ..."

So goes one of the ads for the tsunami of new mobile devices, chips, apps and alerts that promise to keep track of our children's every move. [...] At last, here's an easy way to keep an electronic eye on our kids and make sure they're safe! But what really happens is this:

• Now that we can track our children's every move, we start to think maybe we should. (Sort of like once we could buy our babies those black and white, brain-stimulating mobiles, it started to feel like it's just something a good parent does.)
• Once we think we should track our kids, it means we also start think that this makes sense -- that our kids are quite possibly in danger any time we're not with them.
• Once we start thinking that, we feel our job is to keep them under constant surveillance.
• And once we buy into that, we begin living in a constant state of fear, only assuaged by a glance at the GPS tracker. Phew! He's still there!

The device is like a drug: Once addicted, we only feel good when we're mainlining it.

Today Citizens for the Republic have unveiled a new ad called "Mourning in America," a play on Reagan's famous "Morning in America" ads of 1984.

I wonder if the more apt comparison is to the ads Reagan used in the 1980 campaign. Some can be found here. Though Reagan is called an optimist -- and he was -- he was no Panglossian. More accurate to say he was confident there was no challenge the American people could not handle. And though he had a gentle manner, he did hammer away with things like the misery index, the famous bear in the woods ad (bear representing the Soviet Union), the "Can you afford 4 more years," another talking about how Carter had "slammed the door" on the dream of owning a home.

..."she should be prosecuted," according to Melanie Sloan, the executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics (CREW), a Washington-based liberal watchdog group.

According to Talking Points Memo,

Delaware Republican Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell allegedly used more than $20,000 in campaign funds to pay her rent and other personal expenses, according to a complaint filed Monday by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics [CREW] in Washington, a nonpartisan watchdog group.

With guns blazin', Sloan says that,

Christine O'Donnell is clearly a criminal, and like any crook she should be prosecute...Ms. O'Donnell has spent years embezzling money from her campaign to cover her personal expenses. Republicans and Democrats don't agree on much these days, but both sides should agree on one point: thieves belong in jail not the United States Senate.

Meanwhile, as TPM points out, O'Donnell's lawyer struck back, calling CREW a "left-wing front group" funded by, who else, George Soros. Speaking to the Christian Science Monitor, Cleta Mitchell, O'Donnell's attorney, says, "If Melanie Sloan wants to deny that, you tell Melanie Sloan to reveal her donors...She is not a neutral arbiter of ethics."

The CSM reports:

In a March interview with The News Journal of Wilmington, O'Donnell acknowledged using campaign funds to pay half the rent at her current town home and said it was legal because of the home's dual purpose as a campaign headquarters.

O'Donnell essentially used her campaign's bank card as her personal ATM, CREW executive director Melanie Sloan said, and the improper spending likely would have gone unnoticed if not for her surprise victory in last week's primary.

CREW, which describes itself as nonpartisan but is undoubtedly liberal, has filed a complaint against O'Donnell with the Federal Elections Committee and has "sent a letter to Delaware U.S. Attorney David C. Weiss asking for a criminal investigation of O'Donnell."

Re. Lileks on Sweden, our member Jason comments:

So did I, actually. But it's always Steyn, Steyn, Steyn, Marcia, Marcia, Marcia, never Claire.

The Berlinski junta has had quite enough of America Alone. I predicted it too! I predicted it first! This is not fair.

Therefore, as of now, in the interests of state security and enhanced democracy, all references to the unerring accuracy of any Ricochet contributor's predictions of Europe's demise are subject to the new Ricochet Fairness and Accountability in Broadcasting Act, which means you must mention me every time you mention Mark Steyn. In fact, his fame and popularity are excessively unfair, and therefore, to ensure balance and democracy, my name must be mentioned twice whenever his comes up.

Airbrushers, please remove Steyn's photo and replace it with a second one of me. One in which I look characteristically wise. Thanks.

While contemplating White House "czars" (see post below), I took a gander for the first time at the "White House Blog." This is a section of the official White House website (www.whitehouse.gov) in which various administration officials can post news and commentary.

What struck me is how fiercely partisan the blog is. So let me ask our resident White House experts here on Ricochet (Bill, Peter, John . . ): Does the tone of this blog represent something new in White House communications? I realize that the President must engage in party politics. But I always thought that "the White House" as an institution was meant to appear non-partisan. Maybe I'm wrong about that, but I was surprised by official blog posts with titles like:

• American Has Spoken, Will the GOP Listen?
• Republicans in Congress Push to End Consumer Protections, Let Wall Street Run Loose
• No Excuse for Holding Middle Class Tax Cuts Hostage
• Republican Tax Plan Doubles Nation's Deficit in Just Ten Years

Did the Bush White House have a blog like this?

I think there's something intriguing afoot, but no one seems to be acknowledging it. Or are they? Let me know if I'm wrong, and if this has been reported on extensively.

What I am calling "GenHome" is the group of young men and women who were homeschooled in elementary and/or high school and who will be moving into positions of power over the next 10 years or so. Perhaps they will be the fulcrum of a movement that heals our national political rift. Who knows?

Homeschooling is not a new phenomenon any more, and homeschooled students are earning full rides to college and are, oftentimes, better prepared for the rigors and expectations. This site provides data on homeschooling test results and overall academic success compared to typically educated peers, and it is pretty remarkable.

Homeschooling, in my opinion, is also breaking free of its stereotype. To quote a line I came across recently in my research, homeschooling mothers are not all, "conservative Christians who hate the government and wear denim jumpers.”

Now, to be fair, I don't think there's anything wrong with those qualities, but I do take issue with the "denim jumper" remark. Sweat pants? Okay.

I'm not necessarily thinking about it for myself and my children. Yet. But I'm thinking about thinking about it. I'm pretty content with the education my two daughters receive at their public schools. But, as a former teacher, I feel I could do quite well by them myself. My oldest daughter is an avid reader. She'd sit on the couch and read for 45 minutes or more by herself. And do that three times a day. I want to foster that quiet time, that opportunity for focus, instead of making sure she has those required 20-minute blocks of science, Spanish, gym, recess, music, art, etc. jammed into her 8:15-2:45 p.m. school day. I could be a bit more flexible with those elements, couldn't I? We could spend a day at a farm and then spend a different evening at an orchestral performance.

Listen, I haven't thought it through -- really, at all -- for myself or my family. But I want to hear your thoughts, your experiences. What have you heard? What are your impressions of homeschooled students? Do you think GenHome could influence our future?

I think we need Mr. Sajak's take on this latest move from Kentucky Fried Chicken, as reported in USA Today.

The headline says it all: "KFC pays college women for ad space on buns"

As Molly points out, Bob Woodward's anticipated new book "Obama's Wars" is coming out Monday, and Roger L. Simon over at Pajama's Media has an interesting conservative take on it.

Using the New York Times piece about Woodword's book as his primary source, Simon wryly writes that the book should have been called "All the President's Creeps." Why? According to Woodward's book, the atmosphere Obama has created in the White House, Simon says, "is, well, downright creepy."

One member of the administration, National Security Advisor James L. Jones, actually called the president's aides "the Politburo."

Simon quotes the Times article:

Although the internal divisions described have become public, the book suggests that they were even more intense and disparate than previously known and offers new details. Mr. Biden called Mr. Holbrooke “the most egotistical bastard I’ve ever met.” A variety of administration officials expressed scorn for James L. Jones, the retired Marine general who is national security adviser, while he referred to some of the president’s other aides as “the water bugs” or “the Politburo.”

Simon points out that while tea partiers have certainly called Obama a socialist, "I’ve never heard any of them go nearly so far as his own national security adviser, who uses full-bore Bolshevik terminology for the staff."

I don't usually agree with Yale Law Professor Bruce Ackerman, but he has an interesting proposal in today's Wall Street Journal. It goes like this --

• Pass legislation requiring the President to submit all "senior" appointments to the Senate for confirmation, i.e., no more "czars" to evade the "advice and consent" requirement; and
• In return, the Senate changes its rules to require an up-or-down vote on all executive branch appointments within 60 days, thus removing the ability of senators to "blackmail' the administration by holding up nominations.

So what do you think? I kind of like it as a way of bringing back advice and consent. And when the GOP recaptures the White House (sooner rather than later, I hope), it would be nice if the President could get his cabinet in place without having to please Bernie Sanders.

While I was back in America, I realized that many people, if they're grasping that disturbing things are happening in Turkey at all, are missing the point. A common way of looking at it, to put things crudely, is "They're all Islamists and they always have been, they're just reverting to type."

Yes, absolutely, there are Islamists in Turkey who would like to see the country under Islamic law. But they're few and far between. What most Turks want--and what most supporters of the AKP want, what most people who voted "yes" in the recent referendum want--is stability. They want that, overwhelmingly, because they believe it's good for the economy. (And they're probably right, at least in the short-term.) They may wind up in the end getting a good dose of Islamic law in the bargain, but that's not what they're angling for.

I was talking to a Turkish friend last night about this. He was describing the attitudes of people he knew who had voted "yes." What he said tracked well with what I've heard and seen and read. "People weren't thinking about having the best constitution," he said. "They just think someone should be in charge, because if not there will be chaos, and the economy will go down the tank."

The constitutional talk is abstract to many Turks, as well it might be--after all, for example, the 1980 Turkish constitution guaranteed freedom of expression, and everyone knows that there's something of a gulf between those guarantees and reality.

People knew, in other words, that they were voting to give the AKP a lot more power. And in fact quite a few understood perfectly well that they were voting against the principle of separation of powers. But they reckoned that was a good thing, or at least the lesser of two evils. It would be far worse, in their minds, to see a serious struggle among warring Turkish power centers. That's associated--in immediate, living memory--with coups, tanks in the streets, utterly ineffectual coalition governments, hyper-inflation, economic crises that make the recent American one look like Xanadu.

I have the sense that many Turks felt, "Okay, the AKP wants all the power? Just give it to them already. Just get that settled. Let everyone stop fighting about it so we can get on with things."

Is there an Islamist overlay to this? Many Turks do feel a general solidarity with the Islamic world--"They're like us. And look, they like us!" Some, certainly, support the AKP because they think Erdoğan's really sticking it to Israel, and they think that's a good thing. But in many ways the enthusiasm for this devolves not so much from a theological understanding of that conflict as from an inchoate, smoldering anti-Westernism. Now, that's not a good thing, either. Obviously not. But it's different--in important ways, and with real consequences--from the sentiment that prompts young men to explode themselves in Copenhagen toilets en route to blowing up infidel newspapers.

It's still, I think, as it's always been, the economy above all that's driving voter behavior here. It's not even so much the sense that the AKP has really delivered on the economy, but the fear that any serious challenge to the AKP will result in chaos and the extinction of all economic hope.

Turkey is certainly becoming more and more bitterly and openly divided. But I sense the division is not truly so much between "Islamists" and "secularists" as between "afraid of Erdoğan" and "afraid of what might replace him, because this is Turkey, and things can always get worse."