A WARNING TO DEMOCRATS from former Gore advisor Lawrence Haas:

Leading Democrats, none more so than their presidential candidates, are disavowing their previous votes or statements for the war and competing for anti-Bush purity. They are demanding that Bush end the war in Iraq before the next (presumably Democratic) president takes office in 2009. Momentum is building to block funding later this year.

But, in playing to their anti-war political base, congressional Democrats are pushing party orthodoxy on foreign policy further to the left. After a two-year campaign, any successful Democratic candidate for president may wind up with little leeway to project U.S. power abroad.

Unfortunately, the world will not likely cooperate with a hemmed-in president. Just as Soviet expansionism in the late 1970s reminded America that the Cold War was still on, so may the aftermath of Iraq remind Americans of the larger struggle at hand. Just as our withdrawal from Vietnam emboldened the Soviets, a withdrawal from Iraq may do likewise for today’s enemies.

Read the whole thing.

UPDATE: Porphyrogenitus looks on the bright side:

As for the current crop of “anti-war candidates”, while it’s kind of cynical to say their campaign rhetoric will mean nothing when we’re faced with the need to “project force abroad”, it’s also reassuring to realize that the current Democratic candidates are, well, lying, even if they are getting credit for being “the candid truth tellers”. (Ok, Dennis Kucinich exempted: He’s sincere).

Just take Al Gore (please) – today he sounds as rabid anti-War Left as the rest of them, but during his actual career, he employed people like, well, Lawrence Haas. Right now the Dems are just saying what the “Netroots” demand to hear. Is this behavior corrosively destructive to our civic discourse? Yes. But it doesn’t have as many real foreign policy implications as people who are taking them at their word believe.

At least I hope that’s true. To the extent to which they’re sincere, instead of cynically playing to the “netroots” base, we’re in trouble.

It’s amazing how often I hear politicians talk and hope that they don’t mean what they say. And certainly with regard to extraordinary rendition, Al Gore has changed his tune since he was in office.

TED STEVENS: Ban Wikipedia! Wikipedia problems notwithstanding, this is dumb. I can only conclude that somewhere in Alaska, someone is developing a federally-funded Wikipedia competitor. I’ll call it “the Wiki to nowhere!”

Okay, Stevens’ dumb proposal goes way beyond Wikipedia, but I couldn’t resist that shot.

A FREUDIAN APPROACH to climate change.

I’VE BEEN SAYING FOR A WHILE that local news-blogging, and videoblogging, will be big. Now Bill Hobbs offers another example of why that is.

JAN CRAWFORD GREENBURG on judicial insecurity:

There’s no question “judicial security” is a serious and urgent concern. But I’m skeptical about how mere criticism of judges and their rulings somehow undermines independence, and I suggest it’s somewhat disingenuous to even mention the two concepts in the same phrase or sentence. The murder of the Chicago federal judge’s mother and husband by a disturbed man who’d been before her in a medical malpractice case is horrific and chilling. But that tragedy argues for greater security for judges, not less speech from those criticizing their opinions in controversial cases. Verbal attacks on federal judges — by congressmen or commentators or bloggers or dissenting colleagues — is something entirely different than murderous attacks by disturbed litigants.

Judges write opinions. Judges get criticized. Judges continue writing opinions, some for the rest of their lives (i.e., life tenure). It’s called democracy. I find it quite astonishing that criticism could be considered a threat to judicial independence and has been the topic of recent speeches and conferences and, now, it seemed, congressional hearings.

For life tenure, nice benefits, and largely unchecked power, it seems that having to accept some criticism should be a fair tradeoff. But read the whole thing.

PRESIDENT RUSH LIMBAUGH, and Vice President Ann Coulter.

UPDATE: Ouch.

RUDY GIULIANI ON non-binding resolutions.

JOHN MELLENCAMP as Barack Obama’s VP?

DONALD SENSING: “What happens when a six-year-old girl sings a song written by her mother for her son who is serving in Iraq? It get’s posted on Youtube and gets more than 1.7 million downloads, that’s what.”

ODD GOINGS-ON at Brandeis.

BUT THEY SUPPORT THE TROOPS!

AUSTIN BAY on the great American failure: “The hard truth is, America has never been good at coordinating diplomatic, information, military and economic efforts.”

NANCY PELOSI has a new blog. With video.

IRANIAN ATOMIC SCIENTIST KILLED, without much of a global stink.

Related thoughts here.

UPDATE: I’ve produced “Insta-Twistitude?” It’s a gift.

More here.

ANOTHER UPDATE: More thoughts here.

A HUNG JURY in the Libby trial? It would be a fitting conclusion.

IN THE NEW DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS, a move to renew the assault weapons ban, which as Les Jones notes is spurring some recriminations among gun-rights supporters who were unhappy with the GOP last fall.

BOINGBOING: Valentine’s Day is for infidels!

WELL, IT WAS OBVIOUS, BUT it’s surprising to see the open admission:

Chairman Murtha will describe his strategy for not only limiting the deployment of troops to Iraq but undermining other aspects of the president’s foreign and national security policy.

“Undermining” may not be a felicitous word, but it’s certainly accurate.

UPDATE: Via ABC News, some of the troops’ views:

MAUREEN DOWD ATTACKS OBAMA: More evidence that the Obama honeymoon is over.

A VALENTINE’S DAY LOOK AT the cost of love.

THE BLOG PRIMARY: A look at political advertising in the blogosphere. It’s in the WSJ, but it’s a free link

WHAT’S GOING ON WITH NORTH KOREA: Richard Fernandez interviews an expert.

LOTS OF INTERESTING STUFF at The Victory Caucus.

PUNISHING WINNERS: A war on Toyota?

MAKING IT AS A MODERN MALE.