First he points out that the National Taxpayers Union has crunched the numbers and found that the average Democratic Congressperson has called for far more new government spending than their Republican counterparts.

Then he points to a Washington Post article about Saddam, the war, and WMD that relies heavily on results of interrogation of Tariq Azziz. Lots of good stuff in the article and in Jon’s analysis.

Walt Harrington writes about the Bushes, father and son, he knows in a particularly good op-ed in the Saint Louis Post Dispatch.

“What I’ve never mentioned is that I didn’t vote for George W. I disagree with him on the Supreme Court, environment, abortion, the death penalty and affirmative action. So I voted against this good and decent man. It pained me to do it. As an anointed liberal columnist for The New York Times, Maureen Dowd is paid to have strong opinions, to argue that if George W. Bush opposes affirmative action it’s because he’s an insensitive wealthy white man, one of the last acceptable slurs in our society. Well, I support affirmative action but there are good arguments against it. I support a woman’s right to choose but there are good arguments against it. I oppose the death penalty but there are good arguments for it. Even as President Bush seems to be moving the country inexorably toward war, I can’t fall back on the easy explanations of his critics: He’s trying to prop up his sagging popularity, or avenge his father’s failure to oust Saddam, or save the world for Big Oil. I believe George W. Bush believes Iraq is a deadly threat to the U.S.

It baffles me that grown people must convince themselves that those with whom they disagree are stupid or malevolent. It’s a poison that creates uncivil debate and self-righteous political correctness. Yet, truth is, I didn’t always think so open-mindedly. I used to be quite a self-righteous twit in my youth. Coming to know the Presidents Bush and Bush changed me, helped me learn that no class — rich or poor —has cornered the market on decency or wisdom.”

Some of us have outgrown the self-righteous twit stage, some of us seem to be perpetually stuck in it, and some of us waver back and forth.

President Bush won big on election night. The Republicans picked up enough seats to control the Senate, and increased their margin in the House. Jim Talent beat Jean Carnahan – yeah! I think the election was in part a referendum on Bush’s conduct of the war, and the American people endorsed it. The odd thing about Bush is, he keeps his word. He said no assault on Iraq before the elections and we haven’t. He said the US would act with or without the UN, so if you’re pinning your anti-war hopes on Russia and France, don’t. Saddam’s days are numbered.

On the domestic front, I hope the Republicans don’t repeat the mistakes of the ’92 Democrats who had control of both houses and the Presidency. They then lurched to the left, fought with themselves on pet projects like universal healthcare, and passed idiocy like a big tax increase, all of which PO’d the electorate off so much the Republicans swept into power in Congress in ’94. So my hope is that instead of fighting over the whole loaf, or continuing to compromise at half a loaf, go for three-quarters of the loaf. Pass what you can, reform and revise existing programs rather than start new ones, don’t split between moderates and extremists, govern well, in other words, act like you expect to be in power for a while and don’t get in a big rush to get big changes rammed through during your moment in the sun. I’m hoping for more and sooner tax cuts, a ban on partial birth abortion, partial privatization of Social Security, a permanent elimination of the estate tax, a rein on spending, judicial nominees getting a fair hearing, and better copyright and internet law.

Senator Wellstone’s death is a tragedy, along with all those who died with him.

It’s important for our country that its diverse viewpoints are represented, and Wellstone did an admirable job in representing a particular viewpoint. Not only does this keep the people who agree with this viewpoint engaged and involved in politics in a helpful way, it also means that there is a healthy competition in the marketplace of ideas. And that competition sharpens all the viewpoints there. You could argue, and I don’t have time here to do it, that the monoculture of modern academics has caused its staggering decline and irrelevance.

I’m struck, though, by how the Democratic Party has replaced two of its senatorial candidates with old men who’ve been out of politics for years. Orin Judd pointed this out as an example of the Democrats stepping on blacks because in both instances capable up and coming black candidates were bypassed for has been whites. I’d just like to point out that it’s not the sign of a healthy party that it prefers candidates purely for name recognition. Both Lautenberg and Mondale are a couple of placeholders – two guys who’s only point is to hold on the Senate for the Democrats. The Democratic Party seems to be the one standing athwart history yelling “Stop!” these days: they want no change in Social Security, no change to Welfare, no vouchers, no this, no that; what they want is more of the same spending. Are there any new ideas? Are there alternatives? Nope, it the same thing: if there’s a problem, spend more money.