My dad writes on European affairs.  Check it out: Eurowatch by Weber

The Hume show ends each night with a view of the Capitol Dome at night.  Tonight, it was shown upside down...very clever. 

For my friends on the Left, you must acknowledge the folks at Fox News have a sense of humor.

On a personal note, I was in DC a few weeks ago to attend the tenth anniversary of National Review Online and meet with some folks who may be able to help with this new career venture.

After the event, which was held on the Hill, I walked over to my old haunt, the "Hawk and Dove." After a bowl of the Hawk's chili and a beer, I walked down East Capitol Street toward the Hill.  I’ve done some traveling and seem some beautiful buildings, but the Capitol Dome at night is truly one of the most beautiful sights in the world. Not only because of the architecture, but because of what it represents. It will put a catch in your throat.

Tonight on the Hume show they played audio excerpts of the arguments on partial birth abortion.  I do not favor televising ANY court proceeding, due to two factors.  One, I believe that defendants are entitled to a measure of anonymity prior to conviction (See bold at bottom of this post) and two, televising any event impacts the event due to the effect it has on the participants.

The single best example of this is the O.J. Simpson murder trail.  Judge Lance Ito was certainly affected by the televising of that trial.  He allowed the racism defense and an extension of the trial by a factor of twenty.  This resulted in one of the greatest travesties in the history of American jurisprudence. 

But the horse has left the barn on this one.

If we are going to televise trials that have virtually no impact on society, as is the case in most instances, why do we not televise the arguments that by definition have the greatest impact?

From Evans Novak Report:

The true loss now appears to be approximately 28 seats, pending recounts and absentees. Of these losses, 18 were incumbent Republican members. This unusually high number of incumbent losses is very significant, because it is a true sign of a throw-the-bums-out election. Voters were not choosing against the incumbent party in open seats as often as they were choosing against the incumbents who were supporting President Bush and his policies.

DEMOCRATS CLEAN HOUSE [Byron York]

Has anyone mentioned that Rep. William "Cold Cash" Jefferson won his bid for re-election from Louisiana's Second District? He pulled 30 percent of the vote in yesterday's race against 12 opponents. Exit polls nationwide show that voters had strong feelings about the corruption issue. But that didn't stop Jefferson, even if he is in the remarkable position of winning office after 70 percent of the voters voted against him.

UPDATE: I made a dumb mistake.  Jefferson didn't win outright; he will be in a runoff on December 9.   But he's still in the game.

How does this happen?  Do the voters in this district just not care at all about corruption?  (I know it's Louisiana, but c'mon....)  And why didn't the media help drive this guy from office...his sins are greater than any Republican who lost his seat other than Duke Cunningham (who by the way, was driven from office by his colleagues)...while the Democrats did very little to damage Jefferson. He lost a seat on a commitee, but why didn't the DNC support a vigorous challenger and pour resources into this race to clean their own house?  And why is the MSM not taking them to task for not doing so?