If I were a teenager wanting to borrow my Dad's car, and I thought my Dad would answer "yes" when asked, I would be foolish not to ask.

However, if I expected the answer to be "no" when asked, I might erroneously believe that I could borrow the car anyway, and hope to explain it away later if caught.

I believe that Bush did not take the steps necessary to get a court order and be in compliance with FISA procedures because he knew the answer to his request would be "no".

Why would the court turn down any reasonable request for permission to eavesdrop or wiretap, especially when national security was at stake?

One possible explanation arises: Bush was not engaged in activities that the court would approve of. Perhaps that is why some NSA members refused to participate. One can only guess what the objectionable activities were, spying on political opponents, left-wing anti-war groups, etc.

Hopefully, Congress will be diligent in investigating this issue in the coming months.

Although you would think that the Republican base would catch on by now, they are going to be bombarded with mail concerning the sinister Democratic plans to impeach Bush, elect Hilary in 2008, give up on the War on Terror, allow gay marriage, and support gay adoption.

Karl Rove, master direct mail marketer that he is, knows that he has to light a fire among the Republican voters and he knows how to push their buttons. The Democrats must be demonized. Every challenge to Republican leadership has to be branded as an attempt to subvert the War on Terror and actually assist the terrorists. Sadly, this will work for Republicans, while Democrats stand idly by, wringing their hands.

Without gay marriage on the ballot to drive Republicans to the polls in 2006, the only way to guarantee a strong turnout is to make the consequences of allowing Democrats to win seem apocalyptic in nature.

Afraid that the Republicans will bludgeon them if they speak out about any of Mr. Bush's outrageous failures, the Democrats choose to remain silent, hoping the situation will improve on its own. If any protest is made, it is done so meekly, that no one listens. The dilemma of the Democrats is that they are like people involved in co-dependent, abusive relationships, that refuse to change their situation because of fear of what might happen should they try to speak out against the wrongs being done.

Of course, the situation doesn't improve on its own. It always gets worse until somebody takes a stand and calls for a break in the pattern of abuse. Russ Feingold is attempting to change the debate for the Democrats and give them something to stand for. The question is whether the Democrats actually have the courage to change the destructive status quo, or whether they are content to whimper in 2006 about having another election stolen from them.

Ann Coulter has learned her lessons well from Madonna. Do anything that is outrageous and it will keep you in the limelight. Controversy will sell concert tickets. Madonna has suffered in recent years from the inability to think of things more shocking than what she has done in the past, although she is making lame attempts with her current tour.

Ann is slowly ramping up the rhetoric to be more shocking with each book than in the previous work. Hopefully, she will find her shrill arguments ignored in the near future as people just say, "Oh, that's just Ann Coulter. She'll say anything to get attention."

Ann Coulter's (and her publisher's) biggest fear is that people will stop responding to her and that she will be met with utter disinterest, which is what she deserves.