JONAH GOLDBERG notes that it’s back to the future in American politics.

The “new direction” seems to point toward the old folks’ home . . . .

PAINTING THE SOUTH BLUE?

FOR VETERANS’ DAY WEEKEND, consider donating to Project Valour IT. Yes, I know I’ve suggested this before.

LASHAWN BARBER and Jeralyn Merritt will be on MSNBC today at 5:30, talking about whether it’s time to start the 2008 campaign.

UPDATE: Thanks to Hot Air, you can see video here.

A VETERANS’ DAY ROUNDUP at Pajamas Media.

HEH: Apostles, indeed.

POST ELECTION COMFORT FOOD: DailyPundit’s weekend cooking thread is up.

And don’t miss the Carnival of Cars!

HAPPY VETERAN’S DAY!

HOWARD DEAN CRITICIZES DEMOCRATS for being too white.

Some people are amused.

TECH-ADVICE BLEG: I’VE FINALLY FORCED MY OWN HAND on the big flat-screen TV upgrade, by giving the old TV in my basement to my brother. My friend Doug Weinstein researched things exhaustively and bought this JVC model. I went over and looked at it and thought the picture was terrific, and if it supports the bewildering array of hookups he uses (multiple Tivos, multiple tuners, even a venerable Sony VCR) I’m sure it will fit my needs. Any reason why this is a bad idea?

HYBRIDS DOWN, SUV SALES UP — but what’s interesting is that lots of hybrid owners own SUVs, too.

That’s not really a surprise. People like SUVs because they’re good at carrying kids and stuff over distances and in bad weather. People like hybrids because they’re efficient at commuting and they’re cool. Commuting in your hybrid, while using an SUV for family trips or to take kids to football practice, makes sense. (Of course, my own compromise was to buy a hybrid SUV, but . . . ). I notice more and more people have multiple cars, a trend that’s likely to expand as Americans get richer. Perhaps the notion of a one-size-fits-all car will become passe as a result.

ANN ALTHOUSE FINDS A REASON TO LOVE THE DEMOCRATS — TAX CUTS! “Those damned Republicans only want to help the super-rich, while the Democrats’ beneficence concentrates on the humble folk in the $100,000 to $500,000 range. Finally, someone’s looking out for the working man.”

MICKEY KAUS:

Just a reminder: Rep. Henry Waxman, the aggressive incoming liberal chair of the House Government Reform committee–who is chiding his Republican predecessors for not investigating (in AP’s words) “the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal, the controversy over the leak of CIA operative Valerie Plame’s name, and the pre-Iraq war use of intelligence”–voted for the war. … All future beat-sweeteners about Waxman should be required to (unlike AP) mention this fact before reporting Waxman’s righteous indignation.

Any bets on how often that will happen?

A LOOK AT HOWARD DEAN, and the ongoing blog wars on the left.

Plus, Chris Bowers more or less calls James Carville a traitor.

JAMES WEBB’S SUPPORTERS, stunned by his classy behavior. I suspect this is the beginning of a series of surprises from Webb.

JAMES OBERG SAYS THAT OVERWROUGHT PRESS COVERAGE is producing a Russia/U.S. war of words over outer space, even though there’s really no there, there:

International frictions over space policy took a rising turn this week, with Russian President Vladimir Putin accusing unnamed countries — clearly meaning the United States and perhaps Israel — of “seeking to untie their hands in order to take weapons to outer space, including nuclear weapons.”

Speaking Wednesday at a anniversary celebration at the headquarters of the GRU, Russia’s military intelligence service, Putin continued: “Great harm to stability is caused by unilateral, illegitimate actions by some powers.” In a separate newspaper interview, GRU Chief Valentin Korabelnikov echoed Putin’s specific warning: “Our attention is focused on the threats associated with the appearance of destabilizing weapons, including plans to launch weapons, including nuclear weapons, into space.” . . .

Far more frightening than the purported U.S. deployment of space-based weapons — an eventuality that space experts generally consider remote — is the knee-jerk reaction in Moscow, fueled by cultural Russian paranoia, to the widely published press predictions of such weapons.

Thinking themselves justified by such rumors, Russian leaders could instinctively respond by fielding dusted-off and refurbished space weapons from the Soviet era, along with militarized versions of dual-use modern space technologies. But if they did so, they would be sparring with a phantom — and might realize that too late.

It almost happened once before. In the early 1980s, some hysterical Western press reports about NASA’s new space shuttle and its supposedly secret role as a space combat ship, bomb carrier and laser weapons platform apparently worried Kremlin chief Yuri Andropov enough to initiate responses. By the mid-1980s, Moscow was gearing up for a shooting war in orbit, using space combat stations to forbid astronauts the right of overflight of Soviet territory. . . .

Amid what is starting to look like a 21st-century reprise of the original Moscow miscalculations, it’s too much to hope for the appearance of another Gorbachev. The Russians must be told, and told quickly and credibly, that the press accounts are inaccurate and unworthy of belief — and undeserving of counteraction.

Unfortunately, alarmist news stories are all too often the ‘spin of choice’ in general, and the preferred strategy in the case of domestic political infighting. But the threat of falsely sparking a genuine space weapons race through the cynical or just careless promulgation of myths of such an “arms race” is too high for business as usual, on Earth or in space.

As Oberg notes, U.S. military space policy remains essentially unchanged since the Clinton Administration. You’d think that the Kremlin would have sources it trusts more than the U.S. media, though.

A LOOK AT DEVELOPMENTS IN ALTERNATIVE ENERGY, plus the opening of more Canadian oil sands production. In the same vein, here’s more on switching to fluorescent bulbs at home, and a look at other home energy-saving tips.

HARVARD LAW PROFESSOR BILL STUNTZ has thoughts on what we should be doing in Iraq.

IRAQPUNDIT: “Speak up, Democrats!”

Doesn’t it behoove the Democrats to correct the claim that their ascension to power is good news for the enemies of the U.S.? . . . Democrats don’t have a party position on what to do in Iraq. But surely they have a party position on whether they want to be embraced by the likes of Al Qaeda and Iran. Don’t they? Speak up, Democrats, or Al Qaeda and the Iranian mullahs will find your silence only too eloquent.

Ann Althouse says something similar.

UPDATE: Martin Peretz: “Friday, according to an article by John Hemming from Reuters, Khameini that the defeat of the Republicans on Tuesday was a victory for Iran Let’s hope that the Democrats don’t make it so. One way to prevent this from seeming to be objectively true would be to have Nancy Pelosi end her ugly and personal vendetta against Jane Harman as the chair of the House Intelligene Committee. But, let’s face it, it will take more than that. Much more.”

MESSAGE TO THE GENERALS: So long, and thanks for all the fish.

THOMAS EDSALL thinks that gun-loving libertarians can save the Democratic Party. I’m skeptical. And so, judging by his final paragraph, is Edsall: “If the only upshot of Democratic gains this week is to revive the internecine warfare that has plagued the party since 1968, then it will be a Pyrrhic victory indeed. To avoid this, someone is going to have to persuade the party’s activists to spend less energy fighting one another and more energy fighting Republicans. That won’t be an easy task. But the Western Democrats probably have the best shot.”

STEM CELL GOOD NEWS at FightAging.org.

AIRBRUSHING at Duke.

FOR VETERANS’ DAY WEEKEND, consider donating to Project Valour IT.

WELL, THERE’S AT LEAST ONE WAR KOS SUPPORTS: A war against James Carville!