A little while ago, Tom Bevan of Real Clear Politics and I went looking for trouble. Or demonstrators, anyway. We walked around the Garden and down to Herald Square, which has been the location of several demonstrations. We saw a few protesters here and there, but always in groups of two or three. A lot of people, based on their tee-shirts, may have been looking for a demonstration to join, but I don't think they found one. And the policemen, who are everywhere, made everyone keep walking.

Herald Square is where Chris Matthews is filming his show, and where someone tried to attack him or Christine Whitman last night. Tonight the security was tight, but we got onto the Square and watched for a few minutes. Laura Ingraham and Pat Buchanan were on the show, but everything was quiet.

It was a beautiful night for a walk, as the humidity of the last few days has left us, so our quest wasn't entirely in vain.

The only somewhat clever signs we saw were this one and this one.

A week or two ago, I offered this comment on Michelle Malkin's book In Defense of Internment. I highly recommended the book and found it persuasive on a number of important scores, but disagreed with Michelle to the extent that she argues the internment ultimately was justified.

Michelle has engaged in a long-running debate with historian Greg Robinson and law professor Eric Muller over the her revisionist claims regarding the internment. Robinson and Muller fired their opening salvo when Muller was guest-blogging on the Volokh conspiracy. Muller even enlisted Power Line briefly and, we thought, somewhat unfairly in a post called With Friends Like These (scroll to Aug. 23). Michelle's take on where the debate stands now, as well as links to some of Muller's latest points, can be found here.

Now, a group called the Historians' Committee for Fairness has denounced Michelle's book and alleged that Michelle's "appearance on numerous television and radio shows and her comments during these appearances regarding her book represent a blatant violation of professional standards of objectivity and fairness." The Committee goes on to demand that the television and radio shows on which Michelle has appeared "formally apologize to the Japanese Americans who have been slandered by Ms. Malkin's reckless presentation and invite a reputable historian to present a more even-handed view of the evidence." Robinson and Muller are both members of the Committee. The letter in question appears on Muller's blog.

Eugene Volokh, proprietor of the blog where the debate began, does a nice job of explaining how the historians' rhetoric makes their substantive rhetoric look like an effort to "guard professional turf." Michelle's view of the Committee's letter is here.

Five minutes ago, I persuaded Terry McAuliffe to answer one question on video. My question was: Are you concerned that the Democratic Party has nominated a candidate who told a fable on the Senate floor about spending Christmas in Cambodia?

See McAuliffe's answer here.

DEACON adds: Nice work, Rocket Man. I assume this happened after McAuliffe slapped you on the back. By the way, who is the guy whose profile appears in the right side of the frame? He looks like me, give or take a few years.

HINDROCKET replies: It's David Adesnik of OxBlog. But I don't see the resemblance.

DEACON responds: But remember, it's been more than 20 years since we've seen each other. Somwhere during those years, I looked like that in profile. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

Last night, around the time that Arnold was saying that Hubert Humphrey sounded to him like a socialist, Humphrey was delivering his 1968 acceptance speech on C-SPAN. To me, Humprhrey sounded on that occasion more like a man whose world was collapsing around him than like a socialist. It is true, though, that Humphrey had some socialist tendencies. But what about, Richard Nixon, the man whose words sounded so different to Arnold that he became a Republican? As president, Nixon proposed a guaranteed annual income, wage and price controls, and quota hiring in the construction industry.

Yet there's no point in quibbling with Arnold about this. Nixon and Humphrey did sound different on the issue of economic freedom and, whatever Nixon may have done in office, the difference does represent a major divide between the parties. Nixon told a true lie, and it looks like a good thing for the party that Arnold believed it.

Last January, President Bush delivered a State of the Union address that focused on our successes in the war on terrorism and our progress in Iraq. I thought it was an excellent and powerful speech. The public did not. Polls showed that Bush actually lost ground in the days immediately following. One generally accepted reason was the public's concern over the economy, about which the president talked briefly and ineffectively.

So far, the big-ticket speeches at the Republican convention have dealt almost exclusively with foreign policy and the war on terrorism. Apparently, yesterday was supposed to be about domestic issues, but Arnold had very little to say about the current state of the economy other than to assert that it has come back. His admonition not to be economic "girlie men" was a good line, and apt. But once the glow of Arnold recedes, it will not satisfy swing voters with economic concerns. Laura Bush had an effective few minutes talking about domestic issues, but it was only by way of transition to her main topics, terrorism and 9/11.

The Republicans have a decent story to tell about the economy. Bush inherited a recession, the economy was jolted by 9/11 and corporate scandals, but now, following the Bush tax cuts, it has bounced back. But the story needs to be told and (at least as to the last point) substantiated with numbers. Viewers, it seems to me, need to hear that in the past year we have experienced historically high economic growth numbers as well as rapid and substantial job creation. Some of this is in the president's stump speech, so viewers may hear about it on Thursday. I'd like for them to start hearing about it tonight.

Here in Bloggers' Corner, we're in the eye of the hurricane. The media hurricane, anyway. Within thirty feet of where I'm sitting right now, Tim Russert is interviewing Trent Lott, and Sean Hannity is interviewing Newt Gingrich and Michael Reagan. Tim Russert just stopped by to chat, and Terry McAuliffe clapped me on the back and said, "How ya' doing?"

And a few minutes ago, we talked with Sen. George Allen, who is heading up the Senate Republican campaign effort. Senator Allen has been traversing the country in support of Republican candidates, including several trips to South Dakota and one to Alaska. We pressed Allen for a prediction; he says he's bet $100 on a field goal: a three-seat Republican pickup. He's counting on John Thune, who holds a narrow lead over Tom Daschle in the latest poll, to be one of the three.

It's interesting, though, that at this point not even the party's Senate campaign chairman is echoing the early predictions of a five-seat gain.

DEACON adds: Senator Allen's father, the late, great football coach George Allen, was always happy to win by a field goal. As a Redskins (and Sonny Jurgensen) fan, I always wanted more. This year, I'd settle for a field goal in the Senate.

ONE MORE THING: The nose and glasses in the upper right-hand corner belong to Captain Ed.

We talked to former Senate Whip Alan Simpson a little while ago. He's a funny, entertaining guy. But what I love about him is his combativeness. He enjoys the fight, and we Republicans need more of that.

Sen. Simpson agrees with my conviction that the Bush administration erred by not responding vigorously to the attacks that peppered the administration over the last year, i.e., Joe Wilson, Michael Moore, Richard Clarke and the whole rogues' gallery. Simpson's view is that an attack should never go unanswered.

Most interesting, though, was Sen. Simpson's uncensored view of John Kerry's Senate career:

It was a big goose egg. I never saw anything Kerry did in the Senate. What were his accomplishments? Nothing. Kerry isn't an evil man, but he never did anything that I remember. I didn't see any leadership. I think Kerry is basically a shy person, and they've got him into a role that is uncomfortable for him.

I suppose that helps explain why the Democrats thought it was a good idea to run on Kerry's Vietnam record.

We're still waiting for things to start heating up here, so it's time for a GOP Babe of the Day break. Megan has been sending us a steady stream of her friends; for a more complete lineup, go to WizBang.

Today's volunteer is Garrette Silverman, who works in the White House Budget Office. Note that she proudly displays her "Babes for Bush" pin.

Our convention minders, Betsy and Megan, have done a great job of getting us in on interesting events and lining up interviews, and Radio Row has been a beehive of activity. Today, though, I want to get out of the Garden and into the streets to see and report on what is going on with the protests.

I'm not sure what is being reported about the demonstrations nationally, but a number of scary incidents have taken place. One individual, a junior at Yale, signed up as a convention volunteer, and bided his time until he found himself within a few feet of Vice-President Cheney. The Yale Daily News reports on what happened next:

U.S. Secret Service agents arrested Thomas Frampton '06 Monday evening at the Republican National Convention, after he allegedly tried to climb into the seating area for Vice President Dick Cheney and assaulted an agent.

Frampton -- one of the most visible liberal activists on campus -- got within 10 feet of Cheney, shouting anti-Bush administration statements, according to a complaint lodged by the Secret Service. Frampton was wrestled to the ground and handcuffed when he resisted the agents' efforts to restrain him, the complaint said.

This morning, Andy Card was giving a speech on the main convention floor to the Youth Convention, consisting of Young Republicans, etc. The group was infiltrated by demonstrators who had apparently procured credentials. A witness recounts what happened here.

In another incident Monday night, a policeman was seriously injured when he was knocked from his motorcycle by a group of Communist demonstrators, and then kicked and stomped. He was rescued before they could kill him, but he was hospitalized in serious condition with a head injury.

Security here seems about as tight as it can reasonably be, but it is far from foolproof. If a college student and a bunch of Democratic imposters can crash the Garden and get close to elected officials, I assume that terrorists could too.

BIG TRUNK adds: Little Trunk reports that Frampton is back at school today. According to one of her classmates, Frampton was released on $50,000 bond posted by his wealthy lawyer father.

I've been a fan of Georgia Senator Zell Miller since early 2003, when I posted my first in this long running series of notes and explanations for my assessment of him. This is the fifteenth in a series that began in March of that year.

I wrote then that the list of acceptable Democrats was admittedly a short one, but I provided a list of reasons why Miller rated his status as our favorite. I pointed to the terrific Wall Street Journal column that he had recently published ("Mr. Moonves, call off your hillbilly hunt"). The piece made me reflect that I had liked everything I've read by and about Senator Miller.

I found more reasons to like him when I took a look at his incredible Web site: "Senator Zell Miller, Democrat, Georgia." I numbered the reasons for liking him that were evident on his Web site.

First, Senator Miller featured his support of the president's proposed tax cut right from the git-go on his home page, with what appeared to be his trademark good humor: "Just as that first tax cut passed in 2001 with bipartisan support, I have no doubt the same will happen with this one. As the line in that old hymn says, when the roll is called up yonder on the President’s tax cut, I will not be the only Democrat voting for it, I guarantee it."

Second, the guy has an awesome life story. Click here for his biography. The highlight: "Miller's passions are education, history, baseball and music. He is a walking baseball encyclopedia who is equally at home at the Grand Ol' Opry or Symphony Hall. When he learned that the classical music he loves could help foster development in newborns, he distributed classical music CDs to parents of newborns in a nationally acclaimed program called 'Beethoven for Babies.' He has written five books, including 'Corps Values: Everything You Need To Know I Learned in the Marines' about how his three-year enlistment in the Marines turned his life around as a young man in the 1950s."

Third, the guy has good taste in people. His photo gallery includes shots with the following "good people": Billy Graham, Mickey Mantle, Hank Aaron, Isaac Hayes, Barbara Mandrell, Dolly Parton, Little Richard, "James Brown, the godfather of soul," Emmylou Harris, and Dale Earnhardt. Above is the photo of Senator Miller with Earnhardt from the mid-1990s.

Fourth, the guy has read enough books to have ten favorites. And they're good ones too, substantial books like A Stillness at Appomattox and Lonesome Dove, not The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People.

I could go on, but you get the idea. In anticipation of Senator Miller's keynote speech, NRO has posted John Miller's interview with Senator Miller: "Raising Zell." Quotable quote:

NRO: Why aren't there more Zell Millers in the Democratic party?

MILLER: The Democratic tent has shrunk to the size of a dunce cap. There's no room for conservatives like me. We used to have moderates and conservatives in the party. Then they ran us all out.

One more:

NRO: Cynthia McKinney, the former congresswoman, has reemerged in Georgia as the Democratic nominee in Georgia' 4th congressional district.

MILLER: Yes, she has.

NRO: Any thoughts on that?

MILLER: They're not printable.

And here's the quote that necessitates part 15 of our continuing series on Senator Miller:

NRO: Who will win the presidential election?

MILLER: Bush is going to win and it will be wider than we think right now. As more and more people turn on this election, George W. Bush is going to look better and better and his opponent is going to look weaker and weaker. Who is it we feel more secure with in the White House? The answer to that is President Bush. I have never been more proud to support a president. I admire his leadership and character. I'm glad to have lived long enough to vote for a person like him.

On reflection, I don't have a lot to add to what I said last night. Rod Paige and Michael Steele were very good, especially Steele, but the reality is that no one gets very fired up over education, and I don't think many votes turn on it.

Why that is true is an interesting question. There is nothing that parents care more about than their children's futures, and education is a big part of that equation. Yet "education," as a political issue, leaves most people lukewarm. I think the reason is that most people believe that "education," as a public issue, has very little to do with what really happens in the classroom and in their children's lives. Most people believe--correctly--that education takes place more in the home than in schools, and that individual students and teachers, their work habits and individual efforts, are far more important than anything that happens at a broad, political or theoretical level.

This skepticism has generally been healthy, and has served to protect students and their parents from a lot of bad educational theories over the years. But now, the shoe is on the other foot, and if conservatives are to get anywhere with school choice and other such issues, what they have to overcome, even more than the teachers' unions, is the largely unconscious belief on the part of most voters that political discussion about "education" has little to do with their children's lives or future prospects.

Arnold was great, of course. Working in the "economic girlie men" in the way that he did was inspired. Fitting Arnold into the "compassion" night was perfect, since his uplifting, positive immigrant history fit the theme, but Arnold's style and presence kept the night from being overly feminized. I saw someone saying earlier this morning that he, like most people, hadn't seen Arnold speak before, except in newsclips, and it was a revelation to see how good he is. That comment surprised me a little, but if it's true that a great many people haven't really been exposed to Arnold as a politician, then the boost from his speech could be considerable.

After watching my video footage of the twins, I think my initial evaluation was a bit hard on them. But only a little. The problem wasn't so much their performance as their script, which basically confirmed their image as immature airheads. Why this would be seen as a good thing is anyone's guess. It is an iron law of politics that it is pointless and counterproductive for a Republican to try to be "hip." To the extent that some strategist thought the twins could reflect some sort of hipness on to the President, he was wrong.

The only mitigating evidence I've seen was that the young man sitting on my immediate left last night clearly didn't share my reaction to Jenna and Barbara. On the contrary. So maybe there is an audience for this kind of thing somewhere.

Laura Bush was fine, but I wish she had preceded Arnold instead of following him. Inevitably, both her style and her subject matter felt like a letdown. But she is very popular, and there is nothing to be lost by putting her in front of the public.

My video from last night is done, and can be viewed here. It's much shorter than yesterday's and will be a much quicker download. Still, it will play better if you give it a minute to load.

I was on the floor for part of the evening, sitting with the Minnesota delegation. I did a little filming, just to convey a feel of what the floor is like. You can see, for example, what careful attention the delegates pay to the speeches. I got a quick shot of the elder Bushes, and a little footage of Norm and Laurie Coleman, looking very fetching in a red dress. The rest of the video consists of highlights from the speeches. Stay tuned, though, for the very last clip, which is an excerpt from a late-night blogger interview with a lefty who could be the next Jim Boyd. But only if he doesn't go to jail for disorderly conduct!

Poor Jim Boyd is in the Wall Street Journal this morning.

Actually, I feel sorry for Boyd, and I'd gladly agree to a cease-fire, notwithstanding the fact that he slandered me. But Boyd has become a nationwide symbol of the abuse of media power, and there is nothing we can do about it.

Former outside counsel to the Bush campaign Ben Ginsberg contrasts media coverage of alleged coordination of 527-group advertising with the presidential campaigns of George Bush, on the one hand, and John Kerry, on the other: "Swift boats and double standards." Ginsberg's point is one that has been made with similar skill and persuasiveness in the blogosphere, but here it is in the Washington Post.

During the Reagan and first Bush administrations, the Democratic Party turned the creation of bogus economic data into a cottage industry. The mainstream media of course also helped out, with daily stories of economic destitution, homeless families, destroyed jobs, vanishing industry, and so on, all in an era of economic revitalization that produced 18 million mostly high-paying jobs.

Riding the crest of this propaganda wave was the 1992 number-one best-selling book America: What Went Wrong by Donald Barlett and James Steele, one of the worst books of all time. The election of Bill Clinton in 1992 of course "solved" the homeless problem and other such purported catastrophes, at least until the election of the current president.

Rocket Man and I documented several variants of the bogus economic data cranked out by Democratic Party operatives and their counterparts in the mainstream media in our 1995 essay "The truth about income inequality" linked in the left margin. One particularly galling variant of the attack on the economic success of the Reagan-administration policies was the production of charts depicting a vanishing middle class based on Census Bureau data showing a shrinking number of occupants within a defined middle-income range.

The problem with the chart was that the shrinking middle-income population was a function of growing wealth rather than a vanishing middle class. Many of those formerly earning incomes within the middle income range had moved beyond it to the territory of "the rich" -- thus the shrinking population of those within a defined middle-income band. As I recall, this statistical trick was an artifact of Democratic Party operatives.

Now the Democratic Party does not have to work quite so hard on its own to create such bogus economic data. Its allies in the mainstream media do the party's work for it. In the Washington Times Bruce Bartlett discusses a New York Times story that shows a vanishing middle class based on the old Reagan-era methodology that we discussed in our 1995 income inequality paper: "Skewing the middle class." (Courtesy of RealClearPolitics.)

I was on the floor tonight, and spent some time with the Minnesota delegation. I shot some footage from the floor and from the press area where I watched the main speeches. Then I hurried back to where I'm staying, and, after another long, hot, sweaty day in New York, stopped in the bar for a beer--OK, two beers--before turning in. Tomorrow I'll post more extensive comments, along with a short video of some of tonight's highlights.

My grades of tonight's speeches:

Rod Paige: B
Michael Steele: A-

But why is it that no one gets very excited about education? I'll have some thoughts on this tomorrow.

Arnold: A

Just a great performance, and a perfect way to keep the "compassionate" theme of tonight's show from turning hopelessly sappy with consequent low ratings.

The Bush twins: D

A big disappointment. Who wrote that script? Fire him.

Laura Bush: B

She is very popular and certainly didn't do any harm, and having W. introduce her on video was a nice touch. But it was all too predictable to have much impact. On me, anyway.

More tomorrow.

wasn't bad but, for my money, it fell well short of night one. Of course it could just be me. I tend to like the more cerebral stuff. For all I know, Arnold and Mrs. Bush may have won the president more votes than McCain and Rudy G. In any case, here's my quick take on what I saw:

Michael Steele -- He was an impressive guy more than 15 years ago when he worked as a legal assistant at the law firm I was with. He's a hell of a lot more impressive now. I was particularly moved by his tribute to his mother, who refused to accept public assstance as she single-handedly raised Steele and his sister who is now a doctor (and, if I'm not mistaken, was once married to Mike Tyson). Steele also borrowed my all time favorite convention speech device -- Hubert Humphrey's "but not Senator Goldwater" riff -- and hammered John Kerry with it. (Example, nearly all Senators voted in 2002 for funding to support our troops in Iraq, "but not John Kerry"). Soon the audience was joining in. This one certainly beats "hope/help is on the way."

Arnold -- Terrific. Of the three members of the Power Line crew, I've been the least enthusiastic about Schwarzenegger. It may be time to rethink this. As politics and showmanship, the speech was splendid. But the speech also showed that, as Rocket Man told me before the convention, Arnold has important core values and beliefs in common with conservatives. Plus, you have to love a guy who is willing to admit that Richard Nixon inspired him to become a Republican. No girlie man would do that.

The Bush daughters -- I hate to say it, but that's as embarrassed as I can remember feeling in front of a television set. Five more minutes, and I might have become a swing voter. Again, this may just be me, but I kind of hope it's not.

Laura Bush -- She did well. I think she was at her most effective when she reminded us of the president's record on domestic issues. From an electoral perspective, I wish she had spent more time on that area -- we've already got 9/11 covered. On the other hand, the party's strategists may believe that most viewers won't have seen McCain and Giuliani. As I suggested earlier, Mrs. Bush's speech probably was directed largely at an audience that does not include me, so I'm not really the one to evaluate its effectiveness.

Tom Daschle has spent millions of dollars on television ads, beginning months before any campaign was otherwise underway. Only recently has John Thune begun his media campaign. But the latest South Dakota poll shows Thune with a two-point lead. There are a number of signs that the tide is turning against Daschle.

Daschle's basic problem is that he can't tell South Dakota's voters anything they don't already know. His whole career has been based on pork, not principle. But no matter how many millions of dollars Daschle spends, he can't materially add to the pork factor. He's already got that.

Meanwhile, Thune is running as a man of principle, and, as it happens, his principles match those of the majority of South Dakota voters far better than Daschle's. Daschle can't hide this fact by running ads showing him hugging President Bush.

Jon Lauck's Daschle v. Thune is the place to go for information on what could be the year's most important Senate race.

Last night at around 8 p.m., Al Franken, who is here on behalf of Air America, got into a shoving match with Laura Ingraham's producer. The two men argued about whether Franken had agreed to go on Laura's show and then reneged. The producer started to walk away, but Franken chased him, yelling insults, and the altercation followed. Here is a photo:

As I recall, this isn't the first fight Franken has been in in recent months. Maybe the strain of trying to prop up the Kerry campaign is starting to tell.

Or maybe of the decade. I mean, of course, the teapot tempest over President Bush's purported sudden defeatism in the war. The idea that Bush may suddenly have changed his mind and decided that the war is a loser is so ludicrous that the current media storm can only be accounted for by panic over the prospect of the Kerry campaign's implosion.

Michelle Malkin tracked down the transcript of the Lauer interview, and the one sentence being denounced by the Dems and repeated in the media is even more absurdly out of context than I had expected. The question from Lauer that started the discussion was, "Do you really think we can win this war on terror in the next four years?” The discussion that followed was obviously about the time horizon in which the war on the Islamofascists can be won. Lauer obviously understood this, and did not think that he had gotten a scoop: the President's surrender in the war on terror.

In fact, if you go on a minute or two after the one sentence the Democrats are braying about, Bush said this:

I know if steadfast, strong and resolute — and I say those words very seriously — it's less likely that your kids are going to live under the threat of al-Qaida for a long period of time. I can't tell you. I don't have any … definite end.  But I tell you this, when we succeed in Iraq and Afghanistan, it's the beginning of the end for these extremists. Because freedom is going to have a powerful influence to make sure your kids can grow up in a peaceful world. If we believe, for example, that you can't win, and the alternative is to retreat … I think that would be a disaster for your children.

For the media to promote the idea that Bush seriously suggested that the war on terror can't be won, and is now "recanting," as the Associated Press reported today, is journalistic malpractice of an appalling sort.

This morning, a colleague asked me what I thought of a legal brief recently filed in opposition to a motion I wrote in one of my cases. I answered, "oh, you know, it's just a bunch of lawyer talk." I was joking, partly. Unless a lawyer is committing malpractice, everything he or she says or writes is lawyer talk. Good legal writing takes the less offensive forms of lawyer talk and uses them effectively enough to make one's points without constantly reminding the reader that the lawyer is talking. Alternatively, and less often, some good legal writing uses certain conventions so well that the reader celebrates the writing as lawyer talk at its best.

So too with political speeches. Any speech a politician gives is politician talk, designed to promote the politician and/or the politician's party. Last night, John McCain and Rudy Giuliani were promoting themselves and also lending President Bush a hand. McCain's speech employed less overt forms of politician talk so that he (true to his image) would sound less like a politician. Giuliani used some of the most overt forms in order to present a classic political stem-winder.

There is one key difference between lawyer talk and politician talk. When we hear or read lawyer talk, we usually don't consider the source (other than that it comes from a lawyer). When we hear political speeches, we always consider the specific source -- the identity of the politician who is speaking. I think this is central to understanding what was going on last night. Giuliani and McCain are special sources in ways that even big-hitting Democratic speakers like Clinton and Gore are not. Giuliani, having risen to the challenge of the most monstrous event ever to take place on our shores, has special standing. McCain, hero, political independent and, yes, media favorite, does too. Thus, their most effective endorsement speech is not the usual one ("I support a man who. . .") Their most effective approach is to talk less about who should be president than about the vital subjects that they have special standing to address. The proposition that Bush should be re-elected ought to flow from that text. It should be a conclusion, not a starting point.

Giuliani executed this brilliantly. His avowed text was 9/11. But he missed no opportunity to insert Bush into his story of that event or to infer from the lessons of 9/11 the urgency of re-electing the president. McCain proceeded differently. His speech was a lecture, not a story. His subject was the war against terrorism. Bush was not often mentioned. Yet, McCain drew two lessons from his lecture -- that Bush's most controversial decision in prosecuting the war on terror was correct and that Bush should be re-elected.

Clearly, McCain could have trumpeted Bush more than he did. But it's not clear that doing so would have been the most effective way to promote Bush's interests. As I said, voters consider the source. It's well known that McCain isn't a Bush fan. And it's a truism that undecided voters, the folks McCain can help Bush with, aren't Bush fans either. Thus, McCain's pitch -- that voting for Bush, like it or not, is the proper choice given what we know about the war on terrorism -- may (intentionally or unintentionally) have been the best politician talk McCain could have provided on the president's behalf.

I don't think we've commented yet on the abduction of two French journalists by Muslim extremists in Iraq. The extremists are demanding that France rescind its ban on the wearing of head-scarfs (as well as religious accessories worn by members of other religions) in public schools. In attempting to secure the release of the journalists, France has taken pains to point to its record of support for various Muslim and Arab groups and causes, such as the PLO. Indeed, they have enlisted Arafat to plead their case. And French foreign minister Michel Barnier has proclaimed that the "abduction is incomprehensible for all those who know that France, country of human rights, is a land of tolerance and respect of others."

Is it possible, three years after 9/11, to remain this clueless? Apparently, France is still proceeding on the assumption that Islamofascist terrorism is doled out only to citizens of countries that don't sufficiently respect Muslims and their causes. Thus, it is "incomprehensible" that a nation that thinks it has no guilt in this regard would experience terrorism.

Most Americans, and even most liberal Democrats, have figured out that this "why do they hate us" appproach is folly. Unfortunately, though, most liberal Democrats have not figured out that it is also folly to give a substantial say in how we combat global terrorism to countries as clueless as France.

Wayne Rooney, at 18 one of the very best forwards in the world, has left my beloved Everton to play his soccer for Manchester United. Everton received about $30 million which could rise to about $40 million depending on various contingencies. This is nowhere near Rooney's value, in my opinion.

The deal was completed just four hours before the transfer deadline, but became more or less inevitable on Friday, when Rooney requested the transfer. Most Everton fans are enraged at the "lad," as they made clear during Saturday's match. In my opinion, though, the player didn't let the club down; rather Everton let Rooney down. It did so by degenerating into a second-rate, debt-ridden, conflict-riven outfit. Sure, Rooney supported Everton as a kid and Everton did a great job of developing his talent. But remember that top European clubs like Manchester United get to compete in the Champions League against other great clubs like Bayern Munich, AC Milan, and Real Madrid. Everton fans have no right to expect a world class player like Rooney to forgo the opportunity to appear on that special stage.

It would be different if Everton had any reasonable hope of making the Champions League in the next year or two. But the reality is that next year and the year after, we are far more likely to be playing in a lower English division than in the Champions League.

So long Wayne. All the best.

It's official: General Tommy Franks just told the bloggers that he is endorsing President Bush for re-election. This was the first time, I think, that he made the announcement.

Franks sat down at a laptop to do a rather silly photo-op, impersonating a blogger. Our interview wasn't supposed to come until after his upcoming appearance on Hannity's show. But I couldn't resist asking, "General, can we ask you a question?" That led to a great interview session. I'll post video excerpts in a little while. In the meantime, I'd just note that Franks is an extremely impressive guy. If you assume that you have to be very smart to be put in charge of an invasion force of 150,000 troops, you're right.

UPDATE: Here it is, one minutes's worth of excerpts from the bloggers' interview with General Franks. Don't miss this one.

As I mentioned yesterday, Bloggers' Corner is only about twenty feet from Sean Hannity's booth. The action is fast and furious. A few minutes ago, Terry McAuliffe appeared on Sean's show. They went at it pretty hard, arguing about Vietnam and the war on terror. McAuliffe was stumped when Hannity asked him whether Kerry was lying when he said he spent Christmas in Cambodia.

I posted a little footage of McAuliffe's appearance, and of the impromptu press conference he gave immediately after, right in front of us, where he talked about the protests against the RNC. McAuliffe strikes me as an amiable rogue, much like his pal Bill Clinton. As Hannity was going into a commercial break, McAuliffe got in one last cheap shot: "How's your Halliburton stock doing?" To which Sean replied, "Not bad. How's Global Crossing doing?" I loved it.

The action is so fast that it's hard to keep up with. We'll be interviewing Tommy Franks in a little while; he will be "making an announcement" in a few minutes. Presumably he's announcing that he supports President Bush for re-election.

Anyway, here is a very brief film of McAuliffe and Hannity.

Rudy Boschwitz is the former United States Senator who represented Minnesota for twelve years, from 1978-1991. He is a friend for whom I was proud to serve as treasurer in his 1996 campaign.

His life story is a tribute to the United States that he has never tired of retelling. As a child, he came with his family to America when his father had the foresight to leave Germany upon Hitler's appointment as Chancellor in 1933.

Senator Boschwitz made a name for himself and even became something of an icon in Minnesota as a businessman before he ran for office in 1978. He served in the Senate with distinction and continued the private good works that have enhanced his reputation both before and after his public service.

It should therefore count as something of a fourth and fifth strike against our old-media adversary Jim Boyd, the cowardly lion of Portland Avenue, that he went substantially out of his way to smear both incumbent Senator Norm Coleman and Senator Boschwitz in his Star Tribune column this past Sunday after smearing Rocket Man and me in his column the previous Sunday.

We have already noted Boyd's disgraceful treatment of Senator Coleman in his most recent column. We have held off commenting on Boyd's assertions regarding Senator Boschwitz until now. In his column this past Sunday Boyd wrote:

About six weeks ago, former Sen. Rudy Boschwitz submitted a piece that took on former counterterrorism expert Richard Clarke. The piece contained demonstrably false statements. I required that they be stripped from the piece, and they were. The piece ran.

Let us observe preliminarily that when Jim Boyd talks about "demonstrably false statements," we enter the paradoxical world in which one is asked to judge the veracity of statements such as "all men are liars."

Speaking for himself, Senator Boschwitz has responded to Boyd's smear with a letter to the editor of the Star Tribune that he sent earlier today. He has kindly granted us permission to share it with our readers. Here it is:

Imagine my surprise when I returned from vacation last Sunday, and saw in the Star Tribune an assault on my good name.

In an angry article by Jim Boyd, in which he congratulates himself for preventing "political smear" on your opinion page, he states:

"About six weeks ago, former Sen. Rudy Boschwitz submitted a piece that took on former counterterrorism expert Richard Clarke. The piece contained demonstrably false statements. I required that they be stripped from the piece, and they were. The piece ran."

My my. This indeed was a surprise. I never wrote a piece about Clarke and I haven't talked to Jim Boyd in several years.

I did write a piece, however, about Sandy Berger, Bill Clinton's National Security Adviser. I had a couple of very nice conversations with Sue Wolkerstorfer of the [Star Tribune] editorial page who did object to certain things I wrote, facts that I had checked with my Washington sources, and with which she disagreed. I recognized that if my piece was to be accepted by the Star Tribune, it needed to be changed. So I made the requested changes. The changes certainly did not alter the substance of the article.

Jim Boyd doesn't consider himself a purveyor of political smear such as he accuses others of being. Yet he calls John Hinderaker and Scott Johnson, who wrote two columns that appeared on your pages, "fraudulent" and "smear artists" engaged in "immorality." Strong words indeed for a fellow who abhors political smear and accuses others of engaging in it! I know both of those young men well and find their work particularly well written and painstakingly researched.

They are clearly more accurate than Boyd.

Since his retirement from office by the voters in 1990, Senator Boschwitz has returned to the Twin Cities, rejoined the family business, and resumed an active civic and political life. For Boyd to drag Senator Boschwitz into a discussion that he has literally nothing to do with and to perform a kind of drive-by smear of his good name in the community prompts the following observation.

Jim Boyd's professional behavior seems to have reached the point where we may have to ask of him the same question that Joseph Welch posed to Joe McCarthy, and that made Welch a political legend: "Have you no decency, Sir? At long last, have you no decency?"

Michael Steele, the lieutenant governor of Maryland, will speak to the convention tonight at around 9:00. Years ago, Steele, who is African-American, worked at the same law firm I did. The few times we discussed politics, I found him to be more conservative than I was. That may no longer be the case, but John J. Miller accurately describes Steele as a "rock-ribbed" conservative in this portrait for NRO. I'm very much looking forward to hearing Michael's speech.

I made a ten-minute video of highlights from last night's speeches. If you caught them on television, it may not add much, other than putting the speakers in the context of the audience, and conveying a sense of what was going on in the hall.

It's a big file, over 50 MB, so don't even think about it if you don't have a good broadband connection. And even then, give it a minute or two to download.

Here it is: Night One.

Our friend Steven Hayward is the author of The Age of Reagan. Steve is a gifted, ambitious and audacious historian. The first volume of his two-volume history was published in 2001 and covers Reagan's ascent to the presidency in 1980; the second volume, on which Steve is working, will cover Reagan's presidency. When he completes the second volume The Age of Reagan will constitute a conservative counterweight to Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.'s endless, unfinished The Age of Roosevelt.

Steve's terrific essay on the development of Reagan's thought is featured in the new issue of the Claremont Review of Books, a quarterly magazine that has become my favorite periodical. Steve's essay is "How Reagan became Reagan."

Here are some more detailed thoughts on my observations inside the Garden last night.

First, John McCain. He got a warm reception from the crowd, but nowhere near as warm as Giuliani's. Of course, his speech was nowhere near as good as Rudy's. But I don't think I'm the only Republican partisan who doesn't quite trust McCain. Not as a soldier or as a man, but as a Republican. He never is quite willing to do what it would take to prevent himself from being used by the media and by the Democrats in ways that are damaging to his fellow Republicans. Crazy as it sounds, it was not, in fact, absurd for the Kerry campaign to believe that the co-chairman of Arizonans for Bush might be available to Kerry as a Vice-Presidential candidate. I think this suspicion of McCain showed in the delegates' response to him.

By far the loudest response McCain got--probably the strongest response anyone got--was when he denounced Michael Moore as "a disingenuous filmmaker who would have us believe that Saddam’s Iraq was an oasis of peace, when in fact it was a place of indescribable cruelty...” I think the Republicans should do more of this. The problem with Moore isn't that he is fat, crude or unpatriotic, although all of those things are true. His main fault is that he is a liar. He is also the intellectual leader of today's Democratic Party. The Republicans need to do more to hang him around the Democrats' neck, while empasizing his untruthfulness.

I'm a little surprised that I haven't seen more in the commentary on last nights festivities about what came between McCain and Giuliani--short talks by three relatives of those who perished on September 11, Deena Burnett, whose husband one of the leaders of the uprising on Flight 93; Debra Burlingame, whose brother Chip piloted the American Airlines flight that crashed into Pentagon, and Tara Stackpole, whose husband, a fireman, died in the World Trade Center.

It has been widely remarked that the main theme of the evening was September 11, but it was these three short speeches that made that theme most explicit. They concluded with a moment of silent commemoration of September 11, followed by the singing of Amazing Grace. (I hate to quibble, by the way, but if there are two songs I never need to hear again, they are Amazing Grace and New York, New York. Both, predictably, were sung last night.)

The speeches by these three women were powerful. But not only were they non-partisan, they were completely apolitical. They never mentioned President Bush or suggested any political loyalty or affiliation. But this kind of thing makes the Democrats squirm, and no doubt some Democrats will denounce even these exquisitely neutral presentations as "politicization" of the September 11 attacks. Which is their way of saying that they can attack President Bush, but it is dirty pool for him to defend himself.

All of last night's main speakers articulated the arguments for the Iraq war, and all drew the connections between that war and the terrorist attacks. But is was Tara Stackpole who did so most effectively when she concluded her speech by saying:

Timmy [her husband] is my hero. I am honored to share him with you. Just as I am proud to lend America my oldest son, Kevin, who is headed to Iraq in December with his Navy unit. America must never forget the sacrifices of September 11th or those that are made every day by our sons and daughters in the military service.

This was the most moving moment of the night; you could hear the crowd gasp when Mrs. Stackpole said that her son was going to Iraq. She was emotional but serene; if John McCain were as good a speaker as Tara Stackpole, he would have brought the house down.

Giuliani was great, of course. Several major themes wove through his speech. One was an appeal to independents and Democrats. Giuliani said:

I don’t believe we’re right about everything and Democrats are wrong about everything. Neither party has a monopoly on virtue. But I do believe that there are times in our history when our ideas are more necessary and important for what we are facing.

This is not the year, in other words, to base your vote on Medicare or environmental policy.

Another persistent theme was an appeal to Jewish voters. Giuliani's recounting of the modern history of terrorism began with the murder of Israeli athletes at the 1972 Olympics. He told the story of the murder of Leon Klinghoffer aboard the Achille Lauro, although as the Trunk brilliantly pointed out last night, he missed the opportunity to link that terrorist attack to Iraq and Saddam Hussein. And Giuliani used Kerry's contradictory depictions of Israel's security fence as an example of Kerry's flip-flopping. Giuliani's appeal to Jewish voters was subtle, but unmistakable. Let's hope it works.

Giuliani spent the first part of his speech recalling the events of September 11 and their immediate aftermath. This was important and necessary because of the media embargo on images of the terrorist attacks. Giuliani described watching people jump to their deaths from the upper stories of the World Trade Center and the wall of smoke and dust that rolled down the street when the first tower collapsed. His own leadership, and even heroism, on that day are well known, so the Democrats can't challenge his right to tell those stories. But it is shameful that the media, and in particular the television networks, have adopted a policy of not broadcasting images of September 11, for what appear to be transparently political reasons. So it falls to the Republicans to remind voters what that day was like.

What made Giuliani's speech great and the crowd ecstatic was, of course, his evisceration of John Kerry in the middle portion of the speech. It is well known that Giuliani was once a top-notch trial lawyer who successfully prosecuted Mafia chieftains--not a job for the faint of heart. But his timing and delivery are beyond that of even a superb trial lawyer; in another life, Giuliani could have been a comedian. His facial expressions, his shrugs, were professional-quality ridicule.

Watching Giuliani reminded me of one of the costs of the party's decline in the Northeast. The party's leaders are now generally Southwestern and Midwestern; as such, their styles tend to be laconic and soft-spoken. Giuliani is urban, Italian and Northeastern to the core, and he needed those traditions to deliver the speech he gave last night.

There was nothing new in Giuliani's denunciation of Kerry as a flip-flopper. What made Giuliani's speech nuclear, as I described it last night, were two things: Giuliani's brilliant delivery, and his stature as a hero of September 11. John Kerry simply cannot stand up to Giuliani's ridicule; the contrast between the two men, in style and substance, could hardly be greater. Let's hope the Party finds many opportunities to get Giuliani before the voters between now and November.

Glenn Reynolds explores the sorry performance of the mainstream media in the current campaign and uses our struggle with the cowardly lion of Portland Avenue to illuminate it in his column for TechCentralStation: "A media meltdown?"

We are grateful to Glenn in his capacity as the proprietor of Instapundit for shining his spotlight last Thursday on our continuing efforts (summarized here) to bring Jim Boyd to justice last week. This morning Glenn summarizes his TCS column on Instapundit with this precis: "LAZINESS, BIAS, AND INEPTITUDE: My TechCentralStation column looks at how these characteristics have combined to produce a media meltdown this election year." (Courtesy of RealClearPolitics.)

With Rudy Giuliani's speech still echoing in my mind, I'm looking for serious writtten reactions to it. Richard Brookhiser has taken the occasion of the speech to supply the perspective of Giuliani's career as a public man: "Rudy!" A footnote: He mangles the Woody Allen quote, but he finished the column past midnight.

John Podhoretz reflects on the speech itself in his New York Post column: "Stemwinder."

HINDROCKET adds: Shortly before the main speeches began last night, Podhoretz told Hugh Hewitt and me that he expected a great performance from Giuliani, noting that most people didn't yet realize what a great stump speaker Giuliani is.

This has been one of the longer days in recent memory, beginning with a blogger breakfast at 8:00. The day included technical problems with our internet connections; our first video post; interviews with a number of luminaries including Ed Koch, Ken Mehlman, Ari Fleischer, and, most memorably, recent Miss America Erika Herald; a National Review party at which I met Rich Lowry and Byron York; an appearance on Hugh Hewitt's radio show along with John Podhoretz; and, finally, an evening spent inside the hall watching the first night of the convention. I just got back to my hotel a few minutes ago, and will wait until morning to post detailed impressions of the speeches.

A few preliminary comments: John McCain is at best an adequate speaker, but it is hard for me to believe that he can't muster a more enthusiastic delivery for his endorsement of President Bush. I think his speech was important simply because of who McCain is, but it could have been much more effective if delivered better. McCain waited until the last fifteen seconds to show any emotion.

Rudy Giuliani was nuclear. He went on a little too long, but the middle portion of his speech, in which he eviscerated John Kerry, was a brilliant performance. Kerry cannot withstand that kind of ridicule from a man with as much credibility as Giuliani. And Giuliani's reminiscences of the events of September 11 were important, if only because the media studiously avoid recalling them or showing images of them, lest Americans be roused to fury and tempted to support President Bush.

I'll elaborate on what I observed in the hall in the morning, and probably post some video footage too, but for now I want to go back to our interview with Erika Herald, who will address the convention Wednesday evening and begin her studies at Harvard Law School on Thursday.

She is an attractive young woman, as one would expect, but that really is secondary. I've rarely met a more impressive young person of either sex. She is intelligent, extremely poised and articulate, and has a lively, immensely likable personality. And she projects an impression of kindness that is rare, especially in one so young. Herald is a strong conservative, whose views sometimes brought her into conflict with the Miss America people, and she could have a very bright future in Republican politics. She couldn't possibly have been friendlier to a group of bloggers, who, contrary to what you might expect, tend to be a bit nerdy. Here she is:

Good night.

when Chris Matthews and his mostly liberal panel can't think of anything negative to say about the proceedings. I'm sure the spin has started by now, but immediately after the one-two combination of John McCain and Rudy Giuliani was administered, Matthews and company could only express awe at what they had witnessed. Finally, good old Andrea Mitchell was able to get in a shot at Bush. Mitchell opined that McCain and Giuliani both had succeeded in showing the relevance of the war in Iraq to the war on terrorism, while Bush has never been able to do so. Actually Bush makes that same showing in his standard stump speech. But we excuse Mitchell for not knowing this, and we appreciate her concession that our fight in Iraq is relevant to our fight against terrorism.

We may be witnessing two of the most emotional political conventions ever to take place in the same year. But the emotions in question are very different. The primary emotion at the Democratic convention was hatred, the hatred Democrats feel towards President Bush. The primary emotion at the Repubican convention, at least tonight, was love -- love for our country, love for our fallen heroes, and love for freedom.

The emotions of the two conventions did converge briefly when John McCain called out the number one anti-Bush hate monger, the "disingenuous filmmaker" Michael Moore. For a few moments, the love turned to hate, but it was worth it. And what a brilliant stroke to direct the pent up anger of Republicans, who have seen their president vilified for the past two years, against an unlikeable gadfly rather than a true political opponent.

Twice in his speech McCain referred to the war on terrorism as, in part, a conflict between love and hate. The second time, McCain assured us that love is more powerful than hate. That's the way it looked to me tonight.

That's what one New York City cop told Roger Simon yesterday, during an anti-Bush protests. The overriding purpose of tonight's session of the Republican convention -- from Ron Silver's speech, to John McCain's, to the tributes from the loved ones of the 9/11 heroes, to Guiliani's remarkable address -- was to remind us that 9/11 did happen. We know in our hearts, and the polls confirm, that if Americans really remember, and therefore focus on, 9/11, they will re-elect President Bush and it won't be all that close.

God bless Rudy Giuliani for invoking the memory of the slain Israeli athletes and of Leon Klinghoffer in his declamation on the genesis of the war in which we are engaged. I waited in vain, however, for Rudy to note that the leader of the operation that resulted in Klinghoffer's murder -- Mohammed (Abu or "Daddy") Abbas -- had been holed up in Baghdad and sheltered by Saddam Hussein until his apprehension by American forces last year. (He died in American custody earlier this year.)

Fine as his speech was, that omission seems like a missed opportunity. Among other things, its addition to the history would have implicitly made the point that the lines dividing Saddam Hussein, Yasser Arafat, Osama bin Laden, the mad mullahs of Tehran, the Syrian Baathists et al. are blurred and indistinct. Contrary to one version of the Democratic arguments criticizing the war against Saddam Hussein, our enemy does not fit neatly within a box marked al Qaeda.

Rudy also left out another pertinent fact that had a place in his brief history. Among Yasser Arafat's first terror victims were two Americans murdered on the direct order of Arafat -- Ambassador Cleo Noel and his deputy Curtis Moore. Arafat ordered their murder in a PLO operation conducted in Khartoum, Sudan in early 1973. We told the story of that operation and tried to shed some light on the war in which we are engaged in "America's unsettled score with Yasser Arafat."

Judged simply on its own terms, however, it's hard to believe the convention will hear a better speech than Rudy's.