Sen. Ted Stevens gives his last speech from the floor, after 40 years and seven felonies. Audio and summary available, here.

He has some good words for the Alaska pipeline and still doesn't take kindly to radical environmentalists who prevent Alaska tapping its natural resources.

"To hell with politics, just do what's right for Alaska," has been his motto these many years, he said.

Update: In other Alaska news, Begich enters the Senate with a flourish:

Mark Begich settled in Wednesday as Alaska's newest U.S. senator-elect by doing what almost no other Democrat in Washington would ever do: declaring his support for oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

But this is Alaska, where Democrats are of a different stripe, Begich reminded those who haven't seen many national-level Democrats from Alaska lately.

"I think anyone who knows me knows I'm a different Democrat. I'm from Alaska. I'm a believer, a strong supporter of the 2nd Amendment, a supporter of drilling in ANWR. Alaskans are very liberal [in their belief that] government should not interfere in their personal life," he said.

"I'm definitely different from a New York Democrat -- you can bank on that," he said in response to a question from the New York Times.

Roll Call reports that Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid is giving up on a potential bailout for the Big 3 automakers -- at least for now:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said on Wednesday that they would try to work out a Thursday vote on a House measure that would extend unemployment insurance, a move that would signal the end of the week’s lame-duck session.

Reid filed for cloture Wednesday evening on a bill that would extend unemployment insurance benefits after he failed to get unanimous consent for an economic stimulus package that included infrastructure funding, state aid for Medicaid, and a loan for the ailing automotive industry...

The cloture petition guarantees there will be a vote on unemployment benefits by Friday, but Reid and McConnell are hoping to move that vote up by a day, and they said they would go back to their colleagues to work out an agreement that would allow a Thursday vote.

If the Senate succeeds, there is no reason for the House to come back to town because it has already passed the measure.

Harry Reid will call Congress back into session in December to try again, but if the Bush administration won't agree to a bailout, then Democrats in Congress will simply wait until January 20, and hope some car manufacturers are still around to benefit from their largesse.

It's been clear for a while that Democrats in Washington don't want to save the Big 3 per se, they want to run a car company. A look at the terms of Barney Frank's bailout bill shows that his idea is to put Barack Obama's Cabinet in charge of the automakers. This will merely prolong the death of the Big 3 rather than requiring them to undergo the drastic changes needed to survive.

A friend at the State Department tells of the elation that greeted Barack Obama's election and the subsequent unease at the rumors that Hillary Clinton would be appointed Secretary of State:

"That's not the change they voted for."

The appointment is not yet a done deal according to the Times, but if it does go through -- there's more good news: the current "tension could foreshadow a complex relationship [between Clinton and Obama] burdened by suspicion and enmity." Apparently that would be new suspicion and enmity in addition to all the suspicion and enmity leftover from Obama's stealing of the nomination.

As noted Monday, elements within Pakistan's dysfunctional Inter-Services Intelligence agency (or ISI) continue to support the Taliban and al Qaeda inside Afghanistan. The ISI also supports the extremists inside Pakistan. U.S. intelligence and the leadership of the ISI plan to dismantle the extremist support network inside Pakistan, according to the Asia Times. The main targets are former ISI chief Lieutenant General Hamid Gul, who is considered the father of the Taliban, and Squadron Leader Khalid Khawaja, a retired ISI official:

High-level meetings between US intelligence and Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) have already been held at different levels to devise plans to cripple the support systems of the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Pakistan.

Two prominent names came under discussion at these meetings: retired Lieutenant-General Hamid Gul and a former ISI official, retired Squadron Leader Khalid Khawaja.

Gul, a former head of the ISI, is suspected of providing political and moral support to the Taliban-led resistance in Afghanistan. Last year, former premier Benazir Bhutto named him as a suspect for the October 18 attack on her life in Karachi. She was subsequently assassinated in December.

Khawaja was the first person in the country to assist the displaced families of Arab fighters who fled to Pakistan after the US invasion of Afghanistan in 2001. He fought their cases in court, arranged temporary housing for them and assisted them in departing to their countries. Khawaja is active in the cause of missing people (those detained without trial for years) and wants to register cases against the former chief of army staff and president, General Pervez Musharraf, and his military aides for abuses allegedly committed during their eight years in power.

While the removal of Gul and Khawaja, two senior former ISI officials who have been eyeballs deep in extremist activates in Afghanistan and Pakistan, would likely help the effort, the idea of working with the ISI to take them down is fraught with risk. The ISI remains riddled with officers with competing loyalties. The ISI purges conducted by the Musharraf regime and the Zardari goverment largely targeted the high-level officers in bed with the Taliban. Lower-level officers, many loyal to Gul, Khawaja, and others are still in the ranks, and will sabotage these efforts.

The ISI-Taliban-al Qaeda nexus is quite capable of killing those who oppose them. Just yesterday, Major General Amir Faisal Alvi, the former commander of the Special Services Group, was gunned down while driving to Islamabad.

The Special Services Group is Pakistan's elite counterterrorism force that conducted the assault on the Taliban Red Mosque in Islamabad in July 2007. While police are unsure if this attack was an assassination or a criminal act, good money is on the latter.

The Taliban and their allies have pulled off several high profile assassinations, including the murder of Pakistan's Surgeon General in Rawalpindi, the supposed secure garrison city adjacent to Islamabad. Another suicide strike in Rawalpindi occurred right outside the military general headquarters; the target was a bus carrying ISI personnel. There have been numerous attacks like these throughout Pakistan, in areas only those with assistance from the ISI or the military should be able to access.

Yesterday the Washington Post listed General Jim Jones as a contender for the job of national security adviser in an Obama administration -- a rumor that had circulated for some time already. Jones was floated as a potential running mate for Obama early in the general election (this blog discussed the possibility of Jones serving as VP on either ticket back in October '07), and during the final presidential debate Obama listed Jones as one of the people he consults with (as opposed to William Ayers):

Let me tell you who I associate with. On economic policy, I associate with Warren Buffett and former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker. If I'm interested in figuring out my foreign policy, I associate myself with my running mate, Joe Biden or with Dick Lugar, the Republican ranking member on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, or General Jim Jones, the former supreme allied commander of NATO.

A number of Republicans I spoke with recently believe that Jones, the former Supreme Allied Commander Europe, will indeed get the job. Perhaps Republicans aren't the best source for rumint on the Obama transition, but Jones has deep ties to Republican figures in this town as well -- none more so than John McCain.

Jones opposed the surge, but he's as hawkish a pick as one could hope for from Obama. And of course his primary qualification is that he is not Susan Rice.

Segments of the conservative movement have been questioning Michael Steele's commitment to conservative values, particularly social issues, posing the first obstacle in his bid for RNC chair.

At issue is his part in founding the centrist, pro-choice Republican Leadership Council with Christine Todd Whitman and John Danforth, whose mission includes embracing fiscally conservative candidates with diverse social views. But Steele told the Washington Times this week that he is no longer on the RLC's board, having left in spring of this year when the organization began getting involved in Republican primaries (audio, here):

"I shouldn't be listed on their site because I'm not on their board anymore...I have a fundamental issue with organizations getting involved in primaries, and the organization was endorsing candidates in primaries, which I am fundamentally opposed to...I get what you're trying to do, but if you do it in a way that will alienate people, then it's not ultimately to the benefit of the party...I can't be a part of that."

RLC's mission, as stated by the group's website:

Inspired by a drive to get back to the fundamentals of the Republican Party, Senator John Danforth, Lt. Governor Michael Steele, and Governor Christine Todd Whitman created the political organization the Republican Leadership Council, which advocates for the historic Republican principles of liberty, individual responsibility, and personal freedom.

RLC-PAC's vision is a Republican Party that is unified by the basic tenets of fiscal responsibility and personal freedom, but that allows for diverse opinions on social issues by its members.

If you're having a "one of these things is not like the other" moment in reading that line-up, you're not alone. Whitman is constantly and openly at odds with social conservatives in the party and Danforth has become recently critical of the influence religious conservatives have, writing in 2005, "Republicans have transformed our party into the political arm of conservative Christians."

Steele on the other hand, despite running in a the moderate state of Maryland, has been clear about his personal pro-life views, was an energizing underdog Senate candidate in 2006, and rallied much of the base to his side in an unsuccessful campaign for RNC the same year. He supports overturning Roe v. Wade eventually and more politically attainable pro-life measures in the interim, and has said that he would keep the overturning as part of the Republican Party platform. He's against embryonic stem-cell research funding, but he sounds more skeptical about something like a Federal Marriage Amendment, which given the polling trends on gay marriage, is a perfectly reasonable political position.

In addition, Steele is a devout Catholic who spent three years in seminary preparing to be a priest. One wonders if he'd actually have to be the Pope to satisfy some of the critics as to his pro-life credentials.

Let me be straight-forward in a way I think Michael Steele would appreciate: A black Catholic who grew up in D.C. and lives in Prince George's County becomes a Republican, overcoming social pressure and withstanding abuse, because he believes in conservative ideas and the way they can serve all communities, not because he wishes to be a squishy moderate beloved of the Beltway press. The knock on his pro-life credentials has always struck me as silly, and his leaving the RLC should quiet that line of attack.

God speed, Norm Coleman. It's gonna be a rough recount.

I was listening to the local pop station this morning, and the three usually inane DJs were enraged by the auto bailout story, particularly the part of the story that had even Congressmen marveling at Detroit's tinnest political ears:

After hearing that the chief executives of General Motors, Ford and Chrysler flew here in their costly private jets, Ackerman questioned whether they would use the billions of dollars they are seeking to fix underlying management problems that landed them in a financial mess in the first place.

"There's a delicious irony in seeing private luxury jets flying into Washington, D.C., and people coming off of them with tin cups in their hand, saying that they're going to be trimming down and streamlining their businesses," said Ackerman at a Financial Services Committee hearing yesterday.

"Couldn't you have downgraded to first class or something, or jet-pooled...to get here?" Ackerman asked. "It's almost like seeing a guy show up at the soup kitchen in high hat and tuxedo."

ABC's evening newscast went with the story last night, going so far as to look up coinciding flights on Expedia, from Detroit to Dulles. There were 12 of them, starting at about $200.

The last Rasmussen poll showed more than 40 percent opposed an auto bailout, with 70 percent worried the government would run out of money if it kept traveling this road. Now that the jet story has reached "Fey effect" levels of pop-culture exposure, it may very well keep Congress from rewarding the Big Three's jet-setting paupers with our money.

I'm with Mitt. Let 'em go.

A video retrospective on "Uncle Ted" Stevens, if you dare.

My personal favorite moment isn't in there, when Ted took the floor of the Senate, his Incredible Hulk tie shaking against his chest with barely contained rage, to declare the Bridge to Nowhere his hill to die on.

"I will put the Senate on notice -- and I don't kid people -- if the Senate decides to discriminate against our state and take money only from our state, I will resign from this body," Mr. Stevens vowed.

For the record, I think he's been unfairly maligned for his notorious explanation of the Internet as a "series of tubes," but much of the other maligning has been warranted.

U.S. Special Operations Forces / the CIA struck yet again in Pakistan’s northwest. A senior al Qaeda leader named Abdullah Azzam al Saudi is thought to have been killed in the unmanned Predator/Reaper airstrike, but this has not been confirmed by U.S. intelligence. Azzam serves as a liaison between al Qaeda and the Taliban, and also is involved with al Qaeda’s “external operations” – meaning they network that plots attacks on the West.

Today’s attack isn’t extraordinary because it killed an al Qaeda or occurred inside Pakistani territory: Five senior al Qaeda leaders have been confirmed killed during 30 strikes and incursions into Pakistan’s tribal areas this year. The strike is unusual because it took place in the Bannu Frontier Region, outside of Pakistan’s seven Taliban-controlled tribal areas. The rest of the 29 U.S. strikes inside Pakistan this year took place in the tribal areas of Bajaur and North and South Waziristan.

So is this meaningful? Yes. Most of the reports from Pakistan focus on al Qaeda and the Taliban’s presence in the tribal areas. But for years the groups have been expanding into what are called the “settled districts” of the Northwest Frontier Province. Al Qaeda and Taliban safe houses and camps, and their area of influence extend far outside of the tribal areas. Is the United States planning to strike deep inside Pakistan?

The Pakistani government has weakly protested the U.S. strikes. Earlier this week the Washington Post claimed the attacks were occurring with the approval of the Pakistani government. Will the Pakistani government accept U.S. strikes beyond the tribal areas?

Russia's plan for the new Iskander theater ballistic missile doesn't stop with their proposed Kaliningrad deployment. Aviation Week reports that once domestic requirements are met, Russia may export the weapon to Syria, India, and the UAE -- to start. Algeria, Belarus, Kuwait, and Vietnam have also expressed interest in the SCUD replacement, though Russia claims to be working on an "Echo" variant of the rocket for export that reduces the Iskander's range from 400km to appx. 280km.

Russia's export of its latest and hottest weapon system isn't exactly news -- they've been supplying the world with military hardware for decades. What is interesting is the potential for another East v. West technological showdown in the Israeli-Syria theater. Israel is currently deploying a robust rocket and missile shield that is designed to knock out everything from short range Hezbollah rocket attacks all the way up to an Iranian Shahab-III ballistic missile laydown. That shield will include top-of-the-line American missile defense systems such as the Patriot PAC-3, the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD), and a highly-sensitive new x-band radar, as well as Israeli weapon systems like David's Sling and Iron Dome.

As with the Six Day War, the October War, and the invasion/occupation of southern Lebanon, Israeli and Syria may once again test the mettle of US vs. Russian weapon platforms in the near future. Considering the frightening power of ballistic missiles one would hope that America's defense technology again proves superior.

If nothing else, Ivan's callous proliferation of these heavy shooters should be enough to cast doubt on any existing plan to cut missile defense from the budget.

[Photo: Aviation Week]

The Financial Times reports that Barack Obama is “negotiating terms” under which Robert Gates will remain as Secretary of Defense in an Obama administration. It was widely assumed that Gates would keep his job regardless of who won the election and while I’ve heard conflicting reports about whether he wants to stay, his success means he will almost certainly be offered the choice. If McCain had won, Gates merely would have been rewarded for his competence -- a rare quality in the Bush administration but one that was increasingly visible in the management of the war. For Obama, Gates could be of far greater value.

Barack Obama's problem is that he promised a withdrawal from Iraq that is neither prudent nor possible. More than that, withdrawal at the pace Obama demanded during the primary is no longer warranted: it’s clear we’re winning the war. It was good politics to promise a withdrawal during the primary, and it was something of a wash during the general election, but it would be a complete disaster to deliver on that promise as President. Perhaps the most serious foreign policy mistake Obama made during the election was to support unconditional meetings with our enemies (bad politics and bad policy), and he’s since made fairly clear that he has no intention of following through on that promise. Why should his 16 month timeline for withdrawal from Iraq be any different?

The new Iraqi deadline for the withdrawal of U.S. forces is 32 months, rather than the 16 Obama had promised during the primary, and it may well be possible to safely remove the bulk of U.S. forces by the end of 2011. What Gates can do is provide Obama with the cover to remove troops more quickly. Gates will be one of only a few voices who can credibly say that the facts on the ground allow for Obama's timeline -- that Obama isn’t threatening the gains made by U.S. troops. But Gates can also help provide Obama with the cover to move a little more slowly than his supporters might like -- another voice cautioning, from the inside, against too quick a draw-down.

There’s almost no one who would object to keeping Gates at the helm. As Harry Reid approvingly noted, Gates isn’t even a registered Republican. The usual suspects will whine about how this isn't the change they were promised, or that keeping Gates furthers the perception that Democrats are soft on defense -- in this case too soft for even Obama to find one up to the task of secretary -- but that's all background noise.

Pardoning Lieberman, reaching out to Clinton, and keeping on Gates -- perhaps things won't be as bad as we feared.

He may get the chance to become the underwhelming, charmless Secretary of the Interior, if he is disappointed in his quest to become the underwhelming, charmless Secretary of State.

National Journal reports that Barack Obama has selected CBO Director Peter Orszag to head up the Office of Management and Budget. Orszag is widely respected on both sides of the aisle for his professionalism and his command of budgetary detail. The Orszag appointment also suggests that one of Barack Obama's priorities as president will be controlling health care costs, which Orszag has consistently identified as essential to getting the government's fiscal house in order.

Multiple reports suggest that leading Democratic senators will make health care one of the first issues taken up in the Obama presidency. The Washington Post reported several days ago that the CBO, under Orszag's direction, is preparing a report on cost-saving health care measures. And that report is attracting the interest of one of the last liberal lions:

Aides have refused to indicate what direction Kennedy will pursue but have made it clear he does not intend to cede his longtime leadership role on health policy. They expect to get valuable assistance next month when Peter Orszag, head of the independent Congressional Budget Office, releases a two-volume report on the need for health reform and a set of policy actions that could achieve measurable savings.

Orszag's pet issue is controlling health care costs; his work is being cited by Kennedy aides as they prepare to introduce Kennedy's health care reform blueprint. Kennedy is the Senate's most influential Democrat on health care. Does all this mean that Obama will support Kennedy's approach?

Rasmussen released results of a new national poll yesterday showing Americans put more faith in the concept of free market capitalism than they do in our national leaders’ ability to apply it. According to the poll:

Forty-four percent (44%) of Americans agree with President Bush’s declaration last week that "free-market capitalism is far more than an economic theory. It is the engine of social mobility - the highway to the American Dream."

The same survey found that just 22 percent disagree with that sentiment, while 33 percent are undecided.

As a pollster I know it’s sometimes hard to separate the “message” from the “messenger.” So in this case, given President Bush’s low approval ratings and the economic meltdown over the past two months, I’m surprised the number of free market supporters isn’t even lower.

The news gets worse when voters are asked about their confidence in our national leaders’ ability to handle current economic problems. Republicans as well as Democrats seem equally unsure. Rasmussen writes this:

In a finding rare to Rasmussen Reports’ recent surveys on the economy, there is virtually no partisan divide when voters are asked about their confidence in policymakers. Only 27% of Republicans are somewhat confident in U.S. policymakers, as are just 30% of Democrats. Twenty-one percent (21%) of unaffiliateds agree.

Voters are also pretty cynical when it comes to the economic rescue plan recently passed by Congress:

Adding to this perception is the further finding that 48% of voters think Congress’ passage of a $700-billion economic rescue plan last month was bad for the country. Just 25% think the plan, first proposed by the Bush administration, was good for the country, and 26% are undecided.

Read the full Rasmussen report here.

CNN and AP are both reporting that Stevens fell short in the Alaska Senate race against Democrat Mark Begich (although CNN is only sourcing Begich's campaign at this point, which let's face it, could be the same source AP is using as authoritative.)

The AP is apparently so excited about the Republicans losing another seat that they've lost themselves in the clumsy purple prose of electoral ecstasy:

The crotchety octogenarian built like a birch sapling likes to encourage comparisons with the Incredible Hulk, but he occupies an outsized place in Alaska history.

There may be a recount. Stevens deserves to lose. Coleman doesn't in Minnesota, where his lead has been slip-slidin' away for two weeks even before the recount has begun.

Oh, dear:

She has coruscating intelligence, beauty, style and -- drumroll, please -- a butt. (Yes, you read that right: I'm going to talk about the first lady's butt.)

As I gradually relaxed, as Michelle strode onto more stages and people started focusing on her clothes and presence instead of her patriotism, it dawned on me -- good God, she has a butt! "Obama’s baby (mama) got back," wrote one feminist blogger. "OMG, her butt is humongous!" went a typical comment on one African-American online forum, and while it isn't humongous, per se, it is a solid, round, black, class-A boo-tay. Try as Michelle might to cover it with those Mamie Eisenhower skirts and sheath dresses meant to reassure mainstream voters, the butt would not be denied.

As America fretted about Obama's exoticism and he sought to calm the waters with speeches about unity and common experience, Michelle's body was sending a different message: To hell with biracialism! Compromise, bipartisanship? Don't think so. Here was one clear signifier of blackness that couldn't be tamed, muted or otherwise made invisible. It emerged right before our eyes, in the midst of our growing uncertainty about everything, and we were too bogged down in the daily campaign madness to notice. The one clear predictor of success that the pundits, despite all their fancy maps, charts and holograms, missed completely? Michelle's butt.

We were too bogged down, you see, in the daily madness of discussing issues, arguing talking points, polling voters, and generally conducting the business of electing the next leader of the free world to address the pressing issue of Michelle Obama's rear end. There was a time when a female writer would have relished a female public figure's words being examined instead of her anatomy, but now that we have left behind that provincial trope, we're free to rhetorically and literally leer at the First Lady's behind and debate its social implications. Free at last.

This piece begins with the words, "free at last"— as in Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech, which referenced the reverential, ancient gospel song. "Free at last"— as in the eloquent and efficient phrase used by generations of African Americans to embody the tragedy of slavery, segregation, and America's shame, and the corresponding hope that we could overcome them.

In this case, the phrase is used differently, as in, "Thank God Almighty, we are free from an oppressive history of First Ladies with insufficiently Sir-Mix-a-Lottian figures."

I only wish I could say the piece was tongue-in-cheek, but a) it's not very, and b) that phrase might be inappropriate given the subject matter.

What is best in life? To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women.

This is precisely what the Democratic party achieved with Barack Obama’s historic victory on November 4. The Democrats increased their majorities in both the House and Senate while eliminating anything even resembling a functioning opposition. Those Republicans that survived the massacre are exhausted, scattered and foraging for scraps. It was a bloodbath, and one that should have satiated the blood lust of even the most committed Democratic partisans. Yet some Democrats can’t seem to accept a complete and total victory -- they want to round up the wounded and execute them. Joe Lieberman’s name is at the top of their list.

To his most rabid detractors on the left, Lieberman’s perceived offenses are too many to count. The grievances are tedious and petty and small in comparison to what compelled him to offend in the first place: loyalty to a friend and a commitment to victory in Iraq (a war that many of his opponents once supported but have since abandoned and absolved themselves of any responsibility). Lieberman knew the potential consequences of his political disobedience, but in the end President-elect Obama, Majority Leader Harry Reid, and incoming White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel were magnanimous and merciful -- and why wouldn’t they be? None of Lieberman's statements was beyond the pale.

Of course, to the Jake Tappers, Keith Olbermanns and Joe Kleins in the “press corps,” any statement from the McCain campaign was considered beyond the pale, but Michael Scherer catalogues the ‘worst of the worst’ and there’s nothing there that wasn’t echoed by a hundred other decent and honorable supporters. Perhaps Lieberman was more committed to the fight than his counterpart on the Obama campaign, Chuck Hagel, but any sense of proportion has been lost by the hysterics leading the anti-Joe lynch mob. And there are no pitchfork wielding Republicans intent on burning Chuck Hagel at the stake. There was hardly a peep from the right over his heresy because nobody cared.

The Democratic party and the left won a stunning victory in this election, and while they should be savoring it (and most are) a few are busy trying to settle old scores. It’s pathetic, but it’s also cause for some optimism: these people are a cancer on the Democratic party that even a landslide victory couldn't cure.

Since everyone's been a bit preoccupied with the question of Sarah Palin's next political or entertainment venture, I shamelessly propagate this rumor read on a celebrity blog (by a friend of mine who sent it to me while I was just sitting here reading "The Economist," of course).

Desperate Housewives creator Marc Cherry is reportedly courting the former Republican Vice-Presidential candidate for a cameo appearance on the fifth season finale of the ABC dramedy, airing in May.

Marc is “very hot to trot to have her appear on the season-five finale,” an inside source revealed to the New York Post on Thursday.

“Marc is highly enamored of Sarah and sees her as the ultimate guest star [playing] a similar version of herself. The idea has gone over surprisingly well with execs at Disney, who see it as a blockbuster based on Sarah’s huge ratings on ‘Saturday Night Live.’ “

Palin is back to running the state of Alaska (and disappointing the paparazzi, poolside in Miami), but that won't stop activists from skipping over 2010, the debate of the future of the party, and any TV ventures for Palin entirely in their attempts to get her on the ticket in 2012.

Afghanistan's president raised quite a few eyebrows yesterday when he insisted he would provide safe passage to senior Taliban leaders for negotiations, including Taliban supreme leader Mullah Omar. The Taliban responded immediately to Karzai's offer, rejecting it of course.

Mullah Bahadar, the Taliban's second-in-command, insisted NATO forces must leave. "As long as foreign occupiers remain in Afghanistan, we aren't ready for talks because they hold the power and talks won't bear fruit," he told Reuters. "The problems in Afghanistan are because of them."

Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid also weighed in. "The Taliban's (leadership) decided they will not take part in any peace talks with Karzai or Karzai's administration until such a day when foreign forces leave Afghanistan," he told the Associated Press. "The Taliban will pursue jihad against foreign forces and (Karzai's) government."

Combined with other rejections of offers to talk, it is safe to say the senior Taliban leadership has no interest in negotiations. So why did Karzai make the offer? Slate's Fred Kaplan comes close to figuring it out:

Two inferences can be made from [Karzai's offers to talk to Omar]. First, Karzai is not really proposing anything; Omar has no interest in negotiating for peace, and Karzai certainly knows this. Second, he made the remarks in Kabul after returning from a meeting in London, so he may have meant them for domestic consumption—as a demonstration that he's not a puppet of the West.

There is another component to this: Karzai has to show the Afghan people he has repeatedly offered the olive branch to the Taliban, and that it is the Taliban leadership that refuses to sit down and talk.

Kaplan then asks if there are any Taliban that can be turned. The answer is yes, but the current focus on peeling off low mid-level Taliban leader and their fighters is not a new effort. In may of 2005, the Afghan government established the Tahkim-e-Solh program (Strengthening Peace) that did just that.

I saw this program in action in June of 2006 when I was embedded with the Canadian Army in Kandahar. The Canadians coaxed a Taliban leader named Mullah Ibrahim, who was influential in the Panjwai and Zari districts, the birthplace of the Taliban. At the time, the Strengthening Peace program had peeled off 1,569 low and mid-level Taliban leaders and fighters over the course of a year.

So the effort to pull in the rank and file of the Taliban really is nothing new. So what changed? The media has finally started to pay attention to Afghanistan after years of dwelling on Iraq. And so has the U.S. military.

Michael Isikoff reports that yet another Clintonite will serve in the Obama administration:

President-elect Obama has decided to tap Eric Holder as his attorney general, putting the veteran Washington lawyer in place to become the first African-American to head the Justice Department, according to two legal sources close to the presidential transition.

Holder, who served as deputy attorney general during the Clinton administration, still has to undergo a formal vetting review by the Obama transition team before the selection is final and is publicly announced, said one of the sources, who asked not to be identified talking about the transition process. But in the discussions over the past few days, Obama offered Holder the job and he accepted, the source said. The announcement is not likely until after Obama announces his choices to lead the Treasury and the State Department.

Chief Justice John Roberts has been known to liven up his dissents by writing like a crime novelist. Jan Crawford Greenburg notes that his predecessor, Chief Justice Rehnquist, had a penchant for the theater:

Rehnquist, who had a flair for drama (remember the gold stripes he'd later add to his robe?), also proposed a skit or variety show by the clerks. It was something he eventually would institute.

“I would enjoy seeing what each annual crop of law clerks, together with such help from the Justices that they might wish, could do in the way of a gridiron show or other parody or satire on the court," he wrote.

This tidbit was discovered in the small portion of Rehnquist's papers which were just opened up to the public. Greenburg writes that Rehnquist dictated that his "papers would not be publicly released until the death of every justice who was sitting with them in a particular term. ... That means we only have access to cases over a three-year period, since John Paul Stevens joined the Court in 1975."

Greenburg has more here.

Rob Portman, former US Trade Representative and OMB Director under George W. Bush, shares his thoughts here.

The renewal of the Republican Party starts with an embrace of the core principles of fiscal conservatism, smaller government, traditional values, personal responsibility and ethics, not just when we campaign, but when we govern.

But adherence to these core principles is only a starting point. The key to success is turning these principles into compelling policy solutions to real-world concerns.

There is an understandable nostalgia in the Republican Party for Ronald Reagan. He grew the party and was a popular president while staying true to core values. But I believe we sometimes overlook what made him successful.

Based on core conservative beliefs, he fashioned innovative, and ultimately successful, solutions to seemingly intractable challenges of his time: a dysfunctional welfare system, the Cold War, stagflation from the Carter years, and increased levels of violent crime, among others.

And he effectively communicated his policies in a way that resonated with the American people. His simple and clear explanations, his relentless optimism about America, and his focus on results, not partisan advantage, allowed him to reach beyond the Republican Party to garner support.

We must do the same thing.

Portman, who has played the Democrats' vice presidential nominee in mock debates for the last three election cycles, is a potential candidate for governor in 2010 or the US Senate in 2012. So he may be in a position to follow his own wise advice.

Read it all.

Patrick Ruffini assembles a list of all potential 2010 Republican challengers to Democratic incumbents in the Senate. A couple names I'd add: Congressman and former governor Mike Castle to take on Joe Biden's replacement in Delaware and Tommy Thompson to challenge Russ Feingold in Wisconsin.

Update: In related news, First Read reports John Cornyn will head the National Republican Senatorial Committee this cycle.

From today's Washington Post:

After the G-20 global economic summit wrapped up Saturday afternoon, the Italian prime minister headed for ... the Fashion Centre at Pentagon City. A mall? Since he's already seen Washington's famous monuments, Berlusconi really wanted to see one of the area's famous shopping meccas, Italian Embassy spokesman Niccolo Fontana explained. "He just walked around the mall. Many Italian tourists recognized him, and there were even a few Americans who wanted to take pictures with him."

Berlusconi, surrounded by a flock of nervous-looking security guys, browsed for 10 minutes in Macy's housewares and linens department, moved on to a sports store, then spent about 20 minutes at Brookstone, where he started flying a remote-controlled toy helicopter. Sold! The Italian delegation bought "several" of the $49.95 gadgets before heading to the airport.

You can't make this stuff up.

Senate Democrats have chosen not to give Joe Lieberman a reason to leave the party:

Senate Democrats backed away from a major rebuke of Sen. Joe Lieberman (ID-Conn.) on Tuesday morning, keeping their colleague as the chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee in the next Congress and stripping him only of the gavel on a lesser subcommittee.

Though many Democrats and liberal activists wanted a tougher penalty for Lieberman’s disloyalty — his aggressive criticism of President-elect Barack Obama’s candidacy and his support of GOP presidential hopeful Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) — Senate Democrats ultimately voted to allow Lieberman to stay at the plum Homeland Security post.

Instead, Senate Democrats agreed to take away Lieberman’s top spot on the Environment and Public Works Subcommittee on Private Sector and Consumer Solutions to Global Warming and Wildlife Protection.

Senators approved the motion by a resounding vote of 42-13.

The Netroots are not taking the news well.

The New York Times editorial page endorses the Colombia Free Trade Agreement.

Time's Washington bureau chief Jay Carney swoons:

From Obama's 60 Minutes interview, this seemingly obvious but all-too-rare, refreshingly non-ideological declaration about how best to govern:

We've gotta come up with solutions that are true to our times and true to this moment. And that's gonna be our job. I think the basic principle that government has a role to play in kick starting an economy that has ground to a halt is sound.

I think our basic principle that this is a free market system and that that has worked for us, that it creates innovation and risk taking, I think that's a principle that we've gotta hold to as well. But what I don't wanna do is get bottled up in a lot of ideology and is this conservative or liberal. My interest is finding something that works.

And whether it's coming from FDR or it's coming from Ronald Reagan, if the idea is right for the times then we're gonna apply it. And things that don't work we're gonna get rid of.

Talk about a welcome change from the ideology-first recent past.

I assume that that line about the "the ideology-first recent past" is a reference to the guy still living in Barack Obama's White House. Don't you remember the right-wing ideologue who signed McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform, who pushed for McCain-Kennedy immigration reform, and who signed No Child Left Behind, a bill co-authored by Ted Kennedy?

Just remember that when Barack Obama tries to pass legislation to nationalize health care, eliminate the secret ballot in union elections, and fund abortions with taxpayer money, he's not being ideological. He's just trying to find "something that works."

Joshua Kurlantzick's analysis of how the global economic crisis will affect the Chinese regime is well worth your time. One of the lessons of the current mess is that so-called "decoupling" - the theory that emerging markets were no longer dependent on the major economies - has been exposed as false. As the saying goes, we're all in this together. As U.S. consumption dwindles, Chinese production dwindles too. This means major layoffs in Chinese factories, and growing political instability in China. Kurlantzick:

As the economy turns sour, protest is rising. Many young Chinese have never even lived through an economic downturn. In the Pearl River Delta, months of layoffs are sparking street protests by blue-collar workers fearing they'll never see back pay owed to them and creditors furious at factory owners who shut their doors and vanish. These demonstrations are turning violent, and ultimately could provoke a violent response, since Chinese factory owners increasingly hire thugs to hit back at demonstrators. Overall, demonstrations are spreading, according to Radio Free Asia, which closely follows the Pearl River Delta. Though China has in recent years weathered thousands of protests, they tended to be clustered in poor, rural areas, not the prosperous Delta or other middle-class regions of the country.

Economic instability leads to political instability. That is one of the lessons of the Great Depression. Will declining economies in Russia, China, and Iran makes those countries' leaders more cautious, or more adventurous? More liberal, or more oppressive? We don't know the answer. We do know that it is already a dangerous world. And that the global economic downturn makes it more dangerous still.

She divorced him, got custody of their daughter, married a tennis instructor, and so as to prevent a descent into divorce cliches, she thought outside the box and worked to defeat constitutional reforms he proposed in 2007, which would have made him president for life. Not your average passive aggressor, Marisabel Rodriguez.

Rodriguez, an attractive blonde radio personality and journalist, is now running for mayor of her hometown Barquisimeto to replace an outgoing pro-Chavez candidate. She's reportedly luring much of the woman vote, and support from those disappointed with Chavez's "21st-century socialism," which has produced such delights as "overflowing sewage, human waste in the streets and the lack of electricity." It will only get worse as Chavez's petro-bucks keep falling.

She demonstrated a natural touch as she entered homes and chatted with women about their lives. About 225 miles southwest of the capital Caracas, Barquisimeto may be a city of a million people but in many ways it feels like a small provincial town.

In this neglected neighbourhood, Mrs Rodriguez, despite her fame, is not a celebrity but one of their own. "She has gone through what we have gone through," said Guillermina Barrios, 45, who works as a restaurant cook. "She has suffered emotionally."

Polling shows either of two anti-Chavez candidates could win the office, but if they split the vote, the city may remain in Chavez's camp. Here's Rodriguez bashing her ex on CBS earlier this year.