I'm not for sure that George Bush is a lame duck as much as he is proving to be a super duck. Since the 2006 elections he has, among other things, (1) adopted a strategy that appears to be working and is giving a real political cover for the needed Iraq reforms to materlize, (2) has apparently concluded an amazing diplomatic breakthrough (we'll see if true or not) with North Korea, (3) has, via Israel, stopped Syria's, (Iran's?) and N. Korea's nuclear plans in Syria by bombing the site with almost nothing said in the press by the affected nations, and (4) completely run rings around the Democrat leardership in the House and Senate in terms of getting what he wanted. I'll stop here for brevity's sake. If this guy is a slow learner, then everyone else seems to be idiots.

I think that everyone argees that using physical force to obtain anything is wrong; and that would include sex; and if done, that would be rape. However, in the context of this article rape is what it has been for 3 or 4 decades now: a political slogan to be used to obtain political ends; and it has lost its meaning to the current generation. To this generation real rape is rape everything else is sex. Rape is losing or has lost its old poltical meaning. Too many cried rape when there was none. If you could have written this article, you are a woman steeped in old time femminist ideology and are a dinasour.

Something is wrong with your site. The band of information in the left margin covered a portion of the print, so, I was not able to read the article very well. That being said, I did read yesterday in the "Daily Tech" (whatever publication that it) that the average global tempature as recorded by Hadley, Nasa's GISS, UAH, RSS has decreased by 0.65 to 0.75 degrees C. over the past year, which reverses the warming that had taken place over the last century at least for this year.

Everyone alreday knows who Carl Rove is and that he is very very likely to support a Republican canidate. I find that his comments are accurate and informative for races in either party. And, so far, he seems to stay away from any agenda unlike the many Democratic pundits (who I also appreciate) who seem to become advocates very quickly. Rove may begin doing that too, we'll see; but so far he just seems to give a cool eyed opinion or view of the facts as he sees them.

I'm not so sure that McCain and Obama will act much diferently if confronted by an Iran with atomic weapons.

It stands to reason to observe the Muslim community in reference to "terror" more closely than, say, the Methodist community; but it should only be done via good police work -- not by some far reaching intrusive policy. For example: if a Muslim school or church is teaching "taking the world back from the infidels" then the individuals doing the teaching and those being taught should be taken note of at least. Otherwise a Muslim should just be considered to be an American and nothing more or less.

Frankly a statue of an erect man being objectified by an open mouth woman would have made a better statue.

I may be wrong; but come the election (the way it is playing out now) most people will not know Obama; and they will not vote for him. I am truly begining to think that he is simply not ready for the big time. He seems as confused as liberal reaction to the "New Yorker"; and liberals are confused because they truly see too little real substance in their canidate. They are despirate to protect him -- because he needs it.

In my mind who could not be against governmental power that tramples on individual rights. I just as soon that there be no government with which to trample except for what is needed to build roads, defend the country and the like. But consider this: after 9/11 everyone's main concern was connecting the dots. Just how is that done if not by being very aggressive in obtaining information, sharing it, and responding to any possible threat uncovered? If these things were not done, these same people would be protesting the failure in not antcipating some attack that did occurr. You can't have things both ways.

The truth is conservation is a very good thing and should be encouraged; but it is also true that new generation sources will be needed; and some of them will be coal, gas, etc. However; there will be rapid improvement in solar, wind and other alternatives. That factor along with a more efficient power grid should result in fewer new plants. The real point being that we must not just do one thing to make us energy independent. We must do everything. Conservation and production are two sides of the same coin in the end.

With victory at hand in Iraq, it is fortunate timing that a draw down in troop strength can begin as we transition from combat to support. These battlefield promotions should not have much material effect except to produce better E5s down the line in Afganistan.

Obly "Blue Bogs" could be elected from those districts. Otherwise they would be Republicans.

I understand something about education. My children are 31, 29, and 27 years old. In the same order they are a M. D., an attorney, and an economic and finace major now in the insurance business. What is wrong with education is: (1) teacher unions and controlled teachers; it's kind of a self feeding loop: but the elimination of or the change in direction of teacher unions would over a generation would bring an expotential improvement. (2.) There needs to be a change from large consolidated schools to smaller community schools.