As of this hour Senator John Kerry still absolutely and adamantly insists that he will apologize to no one for his slander of United States military personnel.

Senator John McCain had the following to say earlier today:

"Senator Kerry owes an apology to those Americans, and he should be grateful that we have people who are risking their lives."

If the Democratic Party wishes to stand by as its standard bearer of 2004, the man they chose to endorse as their presidential nominee, insults and demeans every US military person serving in the United States and overseas, then the Democratic Party does not even deserve to come close to being the majority party in either house of Congress.

John Kerry has rarely if ever been successful at much in life. The only reason he ever obtained the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination was because Howard Dean flopped. Kerry was there to pick up the pieces, and then fumbled a presidential election because of his own ineptitude and incompetent statements.

Now John Kerry has this to say about US military personnel:

“You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework, you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq.”

Every once in awhile, John Kerry's true feelings about the US military come out into the open, just as they did when he stabbed the military in the back upon his return from Vietnam. Kerry's comments are as despicable as they are revealing of the left's larger view of our military.

White House spokesman Tony Snow had this reaction:

MR. SNOW: … It sort of fits a pattern. You may recall that last year Senator Kerry on CBS's Face the Nation accused U.S. soldiers of terrorizing kids and children in Iraq and recently also described troop concentrations in Baghdad as, quote, “having failed miserably.” What Senator Kerry ought to do first is apologize to the troops. The clear implication here is: If you flunk out, if you don't study hard, if you don't do your homework, if you don't make an effort to be smart and you don't do well, you, quote, "get stuck in Iraq." Bret, an extraordinary thing has happened since September 11th, which is a lot of people, America's finest, have willingly agreed to volunteer their services in a mission that they know is dangerous, but is also important. And, you know, Senator Kerry not only owes an apology to those who are serving, but also to the families of those who have given their lives in this. This is an absolute insult, and I'm a little astonished that he didn't figure it out already. I mean, you know, as far as Senator Kerry -- I mean, you've seen me; if I say something stupid, I apologize as quickly as possible. And this is something for which he ought to apologize. Meanwhile, it's probably reasonable to ask some of the Democrats -- ask Jim Webb or Tammy Duckworth, both of whom are citing their military record, "Okay. What do you think about? What do you think about this quote? Do you agree with him? He was your presidential nominee." And as for the notion that, you know, you can say this sort of thing about the troops and say you support them, it's interesting.

If John Kerry supports American troops, that support certainly takes a backseat to anything that Kerry believes that he must do to advance his ambitions. Those ambitions hilariously include another potential run for the nomination of his party as president. I rather doubt that there is a scintilla of a chance of that happening now. There are still sane Democrats out there, they're just not present in the leadership of the moment. But many of those same Democrats will have a decisive influence on who gets their party's nomination in 2008, and they are not likely to take kindly to Kerry telling them that they were too stupid to have avoided military service.

This morning John Kerry is attempting to say that his comments were - "and the White House knows it," he says - about the president. The bumbling and fumbling John Kerry cannot even manage to come up with a competent and credible excuse for his despicable comments of last evening.

Every time you see or hear John Kerry, all you have to remember is that the only reason this man ever got the nomination was because Howard Dean crashed and burned. That really does say at all about John Kerry and the totality of his political career.

Oops:

New York, NY (LifeNews.com) -- Actor Michael J. Fox has been on a national crusade late in this year's elections to promote candidates who back embryonic stem cell research. He started his campaign by slamming a pro-life candidate in Missouri and backing a massive proposal that would promote embryonic stem cell research and human cloning.
However, the actor admitted in a weekend interview that he hasn't read the text of Missouri's Amendment 2. He also said he opposes cloning, even though the proposition promotes it.

In an interview with ABC's "This Week" with host George Stephanopoulos, Fox, who suffers from Parkinson's disease, admit he hasn't read the lengthy Missouri embryonic stem cell research proposal he supports.

Despite my almost perpetual irritation with CNN, I am pleased to see that the network retains some semblance of common sense:

Major U.S. news outlets CNN and National Public Radio will not air paid ads or sponsor announcements for a controversial film depicting the assassination of President George W. Bush, citing the film's content, network spokeswomen said on Tuesday.

The film, "Death of a President," caused a stir at the Toronto Film Festival in September where it debuted, and two major U.S. cinema chains have declined to screen the film when it debuts in the United States on Friday.

"CNN has decided not to take the ad because of the extreme nature of the film's subject matter," the cable television network said in a statement.

George Allen had his "Macaca Moment," and now James Webb has far worse:

Sen. George Allen, R-VA, unleashed a press release late Thursday that exposed his rival's fiction writing, which includes graphic underage sex scenes.

The press release, as provided by the Allen Campaign:

WEBB’S WEIRD WORLD

The Author’s Disturbing Writings Show a Continued Pattern of Demeaning Women

· Some of Webb’s writings are very disturbing for a candidate hoping to represent the families of Virginians in the U.S. Senate.

· Many excellent books about the United States military and wartime service accomplish their purposes, and even win awards, without systematically demeaning women, and without dehumanizing women, men and even children.

· Webb’s novels disturbingly and consistently – indeed, almost uniformly – portray women as servile, subordinate, inept, incompetent, promiscuous, perverted, or some combination of these. In novel after novel, Webb assigns his female characters base, negative characteristics. In thousands of pages of fiction penned by Webb, there are few if any strong, admirable women or positive female role models.

Why does Jim Webb refuse to portray women in a respectful, positive light, whether in his non-fiction concerning their role in the military, or in his provocative novels? How can women trust him to represent their views in the Senate when chauvinistic attitudes and sexually exploitive references run throughout his fiction and non-fiction writings?

· Most Virginians and Americans would find passages such as those below shocking, especially coming from the pen of someone who seeks the privilege of serving in the United States Senate, one of the highest offices in the land..."

It has been three weeks since the brownshirts of Columbia University rushed the stage and attacked a speaker, but the university has done little and the president has said hardly anything, and has issued no apologies. Now the university wants to expand northward, and the New York Post asks "what kind of a neighbor Colombia really is?"

I wonder if those who have been so rabidly attacking Rush Limbaugh over the last 24 hours will attack Mary Davenport as well:

The popular and appealing actor Michael J. Fox has taken to the airwaves in Senate battleground states Missouri, Maryland, and New Jersey with a highly misleading ad urging defeat of Republican Senatorial candidates opposing the use of taxpayer dollars to fund new embryonic stem cell line research. He states,

"Stem cell research offers hope to millions of Americans with diseases like diabetes, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's.... But George Bush and Michael Steele would put limits on the most promising stem cell research."

Mr. Fox and his ads' sponsors are guilty of conflating embryonic stem cell research, which the GOP candidates and many Americans oppose for destroying a human life in the name of curing other people's diseases, with stem cell research in general, which includes adult stem cell research and umbilical cord blood stem cell research.

...The plain fact is that embryonic stem cell research is proving to be a bust. There are currently 72 therapies showing human benefits using adult stem cells and zero using embryonic stem cells. Scientifically-minded readers can review this medical journal article on the status of adult stem cell research. Adult stem cell therapies are already being advertised and promoted while no such treatments are even remotely in prospect for embryonic stem cell research.

The fact is that adult stem cells have already produced remarkable cures, whereas embryonic stem cells have failed. This should come as no great surprise to anyone with a background in high school biology. When an embryo is created by the union of the sperm and egg, the cells begin to divide, creating embryonic stem cells from which all future tissues and organs are derived. Within days, the embryonic cells differentiate into three cell layers - ectoderm, mesoderm and endoderm. Cells in these layers continue to differentiate into tissues and organs. As the embryo matures into a fetus, child, and adult, some undifferentiated cells of the three types remain in various tissues such as bone marrow, fat, skin and olfactory tissue.

The Mark Foley scandal overshadowed another apparent scandal which was breaking on the same day:

The second scandal—most likely still unknown to you, almost three weeks after it went public—is the unveiling, for the first time ever, of the full 54-minute FBI Abscam surveillance video showing U.S. Rep. Jack Murtha (D.-Pa.) negotiating a $50,000 cash bribe from a man he believed to be an agent of a rich Arab sheik—but who was in reality an undercover agent for the FBI.

The video, available at www.YouDon’tKnowJack.org, proves that Jack Murtha has been lying for 26 years about his involvement in Abscam, the biggest congressional corruption scandal in history.

Contrary to Murtha’s stated defense that he only discussed how to bring needed investment into his southwestern Pennsylvania congressional district, the video proves that Murtha believed he had cut a deal to take a $50,000 cash bribe in exchange for helping a rich foreigner get into America, and proves further that the “investment defense” was nothing more than a cover to throw suspicious reporters off the trail.

Can anyone doubt that if the video had showed a senior Republican caught on tape discussing how to take a $50,000 cash bribe to help a rich foreigner get into the country, it would be front-page news all over the nation?

As Murtha’s opponent in Pennsylvania’s 12th District, I’m taking full advantage of the scandal surrounding this newly released FBI surveillance video.

No wonder Nancy Pelosi won't support Murtha for Majority Leader, should she become Speaker.

Dick Morris:

October 24, 2006 -- THE latest polls show something very strange and quite encouraging is happening: The Republican base seems to be coming back home. This trend, only vaguely and dimly emerging from a variety of polls, suggests that a trend may be afoot that would deny the Democrats control of the House and the Senate.

With two weeks to go, anything can happen, but it is beginning to look poss- ible that the Democratic surge in the midterm elections may fall short of control in either House.

Here's the evidence:

* Pollsters Scott Rasmussen and John Zogby both show Republican Bob Corker gaining on Democratic Rep. Harold Ford Jr. in Tennessee, a must-win Senate seat for the Democrats. Zogby has Corker ahead by seven, while Rasmussen still shows a Ford edge of two points.

* Zogby reports a "turnaround" in New Jersey's Senate race with the GOP candidate Tom Kean taking the lead, a conclusion shared by some other public polls.

* Even though Sen. Jim Talent in Missouri is still under the magic 50 percent threshold for an incumbent, Rasmussen has him one point ahead and Zogby puts him three up. But unless he crests 50 percent, he'll probably still lose.

* Even though he is a lost cause, both Rasmussen and Zogby show Montana's Republican Sen. Conrad Burns cutting the gap and moving up.

* In Virginia, Republican embattled incumbent Sen. George Allen has now moved over the 50 percent threshold in his internal polls. (He'd been at 48 percent.)

Nationally, Zogby reports that the generic Democratic edge is down to four points, having been as high as nine two weeks ago.

None of these data indicates that the Republicans are out of trouble yet, but Democrats must win one of these three races: Ford in Tennessee, Menendez in New Jersey or Webb in Virginia. If not, they'll fall at least one seat short of controlling the Senate even if they succeed in knocking off all five vulnerable GOP incumbents in Montana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Missouri.

Why are Republican fortunes brightening?

The GOP base, alienated by the Foley scandal and the generally dismal record of this Congress, may have fast forwarded to the prospect of a Democratic victory and recoiled. They may have pondered the impact of a repeal of the Patriot Act, a ban on NSA wiretapping and a requirement of having an attorney present in terrorist questioning - and decided not to punish the country for the sins of the Republican leaders.

Bush's success in dealing with North Korea and his willingness to reassess tactics in Iraq could also play a part in the slight shift now underway.

Or perhaps Americans are finally visualizing a potential Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and the disaster that would entail? The more she shows up on camera the more the Democrats appear to lose steam, and in politics a coincidence is very rare if nonexistent.

With the recent and unbelievable airing by CNN of enemy snipers shooting at Americans, the Gateway pundit asks if CNN is planning on showing the death of another American:

CNN, this is American hero Joshua L. Booth. He died for his country. He died in Iraq fighting for freedom like hundreds of thousands of American marines and soldiers before him. He leaves a wife and 18 month old daughter.

CNN- Are you planning on showing his death, too?
Do we "need" to see Joshua die?

Booth's parents said they wanted Booth to be buried in Arlington National Cemetery, but he didn't believe he was worthy of it and wished to be buried in a family plot in Bedford, Va.

And Michelle Malkin has a post called Support American Snipers:

I am asking you to combat CNN's glorification of Iraqi jihadist snipers by supporting American snipers. Seems like the only time American snipers earn CNN and other international media organization's attention is when they make mistakes and can be tarred as reckless killers.

Americansnipers.org (formerly Adopt a Sniper) collects items to support our troops. You can read letters from the front here. Donate here.

Paul over at Powerline just doesn't seem as enthused about Barack Obama as those in MSM who are gleefully hoping for an Obama run for the presidency:

Yesterday, Fox News contributor Mara Liasson described Barack Obama's "life story" as "compelling. Believe me, she doesn't know the half. Check out Big Lizards and learn about Obama's boyhood in war-ravaged Hawaii; his daring double major in political science and international relations at Columbia; his tragic and devastating defeat in a 2000 congressional primary; and his heroic comeback in which he avenged not only his own defeat but also that of the great Carol Mosley Braun, so shamefully stripped of her Senate seat in an election where the Chicago dead were deliberately disenfranchised.

If Nancy Pelosi becomes speaker of the House, she is considering passing over the more experienced California Representative, Jane Harman, in favor of a tarnished former federal judge for chairman of the House intelligence committee, simply because Congresswoman Harman has not been - in Pelosi's view - sufficiently critical of the Bush administration for its prewar intelligence failure on Iraq.

From today's New York Times:

Representative Jane Harman has gained national prominence as the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, but even her supporters now concede that she is unlikely to become chairman if her party wins control of the House.

Standing in her way is another California lawmaker, Representative Nancy Pelosi, the Democrats’ speaker-in-waiting, who would have the power to pick the leader of each committee. The relationship between the two has soured in recent years over political rivalries and policy disputes, and Congressional officials on both sides of the divide say Ms. Pelosi would most likely look elsewhere to fill the Intelligence Committee’s top job. ...

Ms. Harman, a moderate from Southern California, has been one of the party’s most outspoken voices on national security matters since the Sept. 11 attacks. But she has also drawn sharp criticism from more liberal Democrats, including Ms. Pelosi, who have privately said that she has not sufficiently used her position to attack the Bush administration for its prewar intelligence failures on Iraq and for its use of secret programs like the domestic eavesdropping carried out without warrants by the National Security Agency.

Two candidates whom Ms. Pelosi is said to be considering for Intelligence Committee chairman are Representatives Alcee L. Hastings of Florida and Silvestre Reyes of Texas, both of whom currently serve on the panel.

The selection of Mr. Hastings, who is black, would help Ms. Pelosi shore up support from the powerful Congressional Black Caucus. But he has a checkered past, having been impeached and removed from a federal judgeship in 1989 on a bribery charge. Some Democrats fear that installing him in so sensitive a position would only invite Republican charges of weak Democratic leadership on national security matters.

Weak Democrat leadership on national security? I rather suspect that is a given under a House run by Nancy Pelosi.

Gas prices plunging, the stock market rising, and most economic indicators remain largely positive, yet voters largely believe that the nation is on the wrong track. This while terrorists multiply, North Korea and Iran present the possibility of less than stable regimes producing nuclear weapons, and of course terrorists continuing to seek new and improved ways to attack the United States on its home front and abroad, potentially with nuclear material obtained from those less than stable regimes. Yet voters are flirting with the idea of turning over power to a party which has yet to demonstrate even a semblance of competence to deal with the emerging threats that are facing America.

Michael Barone offers his analysis:

Why so cranky? So why do large majorities of voters say the nation is off on the wrong track? One reason is that we have come to expect good things. Even as consumers keep spending lots of money, they get cranky when gas prices spike upward -- and then don't take much note when, presto, the market works and they plunge back down again. We take it for granted that Times Square is as crime free a tourist zone as Walt Disney World. We are dismayed by continuing violence in Iraq because we have come to expect military interventions to be as casualty free as our effort in Kosovo.

But there is something else. It's the looming threat behind the headlines: London terrorist bombers arrested. Terrorist plot to bomb trains in Germany. Iran is developing nuclear weapons, while its president denies the Holocaust and threatens to destroy Israel. Hugo Chavez at the United Nations railing at the United States. North Korea is developing nuclear weapons to go with the missiles it already has. All these remind us that there are people out there who want to destroy our bounteous and tolerant civilization.

And we know, since Sept. 11, 2001, that they will inflict any damage they can. North Korea is a proven weapons proliferator. Iran is the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism. It's not hard to imagine them equipping terrorists with nuclear weapons -- or with the biological weapons (anthrax, plague) North Korea is said to be developing. Remember the anthrax attacks of September 2001? It turns out we still have no idea where the anthrax came from.

"History is a nightmare from which I am trying to awake," the novelist James Joyce once wrote. From the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union up until the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, we were on a holiday from history. We were happy to pay little attention to the Islamofascist terrorist threat that should have been apparent from the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993. We left that to government officials, who took it seriously and did some things to address it -- but in hindsight not enough. Since then, we took the offensive and have had some successes in stopping terrorists. But we seem to be growing tired of the fight.

Now it appears that voters are willing to turn over Congress to a party most of whose representatives voted against allowing the National Security Agency to surveil without a court order al-Qaida suspects when they place calls to persons in the United States and against allowing terrorist interrogations under rules supported by John McCain.

We are weary, it seems, and ready to go back on holiday. Some things -- a nuclear attack on the United States, the successful release of a disease pathogen that could kill millions -- are just too horrifying to think about. But maybe we should think more about them. As Leon Trotsky is supposed to have said, "You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you."

...leads Ned Lamont by 17 points. Ouch.

Kim Jong-Il is like a little child with a new toy. He played with it last week, and now he is sorry:

North Korean leader Kim Jong Il said Pyongyang didn't plan to carry out any more nuclear tests and expressed regret about the country's first-ever atomic detonation last week, a South Korean news agency reported Friday.

North Korea, however, kept up its bellicose rhetoric as more than 100,000 people gathered Friday in Pyongyang's central Kim Il Sung square to "hail the success of the historic nuclear test," according to the North's official media.

Kim told Chinese State Councilor Tang Jiaxuan that "we have no plans for additional nuclear tests," Yonhap news agency reported, citing an unnamed diplomatic source in Beijing.

Kim's apparent detonation of a nuclear device was more than even his most staunchest supporter - China - could take. It's unlikely the Kim is really sorry. It is more likely that he wishes to keep the favor of a country that, if it cuts him off, his regime would likely collapse in a very short time. It's just a matter of mere survival for the North Korean dictator.