The weirdest point in Monday night's Webb/Allen debate - which, for a forty-five minute debate, had a surprising number of weird points - came when Webb attacked Allen's limited foreign affairs experience by asking a question about the Senkaku Islands.

I dislike Allen as much as [more than] the next guy, but that seemed a bit underhanded. On the one hand, yeah, he should know what's going on in the world. But on the other hand, he's running for the Senate, not the Oval Office (yet). And the Senkaku Islands are - relatively speaking - small fish in a big pond (I'm hardly a foreign policy expert, but I'm fairly well educated, and I wouldn't have known where the Senkaku Islands are if Webb hadn't told me). Webb was clearly trying to get Allen back for the Craney Island debacle from a little while ago, and I can understand that. But I don't think there's anyone, including George Allen and his staff, who would argue that between George Allen and Jim Webb, Allen's the foreign policy expert. So how does this help Jim Webb? I guess the best-case scenario is that the voters say to themselves, "Gosh, Allen doesn't know anything about foreign policy, but Webb does, so I guess I'll vote for Webb." But all things considered, I think the far more likely result is that the voters say to themselves, "Self,* I have two things to say. First, Jim Webb is an asshole for sandbagging George Allen that way. And second, I don't care about foreign policy."

* - This is what each voter says to him- or herself, hence the singular.

From a couple of days ago: a Montana state representative, Roger Koopman (R-Obviously), was "insulted" by Gov. Brian Schweitzer's "incredibly bigoted" statements that seem to imply that the Earth is more than 6,000 years old. Now I suppose one ought to have a relatively laissez-faire attitude toward people and what they choose to be insulted by, but you have to feel bad for this guy: with a bar set that low, he's probably insulted quite a lot.

(And lest you godless liberals jump to the wrong conclusion and assume that Koopman's a crazy Christian creationist, you should know that his belief is based not on faith, but on his own "scientific investigations.")

The Boston Globe finds John Kerry's recent frenetic activity to be a sign of an impending candidacy... and not the local kind. I supported Kerry two years ago (once he became the nominee), and if he wins the nomination in 2008, God knows I'll support him again. But I very much hope that I don't have to.

Kerry should have won in 2004. He ran a decent race, and he owes a fair part of the blame for his loss to an attack campaign that would have been an insult to the voters' intelligence if it hadn't been so damned effective (the fact that middle America could be outraged by Kerry's apparent military deceit and yet simultaneously turn a blind eye to Bush's military experience is quite exceptional). That being said, it worked. And given that, I think Kerry's time has come and gone.

There are plenty of Democrats who would come out of the gate with a significant handicap: Obama's too inexperienced; Richardson's too unknown; Hillary's too... Hillary. Kerry's handicaps are as severe as any of those, if not moreso (the Swiftees are still around, after all). And while his handicaps are just as unjustified as any of the others', there's a crucial difference: Kerry's had a chance to get himself out from under them, and been unable to do so. It's not his fault, I don't think; but he's a weaker candidate for it. And weak is the last thing the Democrats need.

Protesters in Pittsburgh chase Jeb Bush and his staff into a broom closet at a subway station. (Really.)

I've honestly never been so proud to have grown up there.

(If memory serves, there are only about four subway stations in all of Pittsburgh, so I guess it's lucky that he was near one.)

The New York Times today launched a four-part series on "how American religious organizations benefit from an increasingly accommodating government." The first article focuses on the licensing exemptions granted to religious day-care centers, which are apparently quite extensive. (The pastor of one church, explaining his support for the exemptions, noted that his congregation had "talked about" getting licensed in the past, but rejected it because "it would cost us quite a bit of money." In other words, they know they're substandard, but they don't want to invest the money necessary to bring themselves up to code.) It's a long article, but an interesting read.

(Special jargon-laden alternate post for 1Ls: Enjoy reading about zoning law? Employment Division v. Smith? The RFRA? The RLUIPA? Then this is the series for you!)

There was a short op-ed about grief in today's New York Times, written by a sociology professor at GW who recently lost a son:

In my eulogy I divulged that I believe in a God who brings meaning to the world, but that my belief has been severely tested. I missed seeing God in the killing fields of Cambodia, and he seems too busy to show up in Darfur, or to shine his face on either the Sunnis or the Shiites in Iraq. With a rising voice, I asked: How could God allow a son to be taken from his aging, ailing father? A devoted husband to be torn from the arms of his loving wife in the middle of the night? How could he allow a 2-year-old to be left searching for his father in vain, or deny an infant the chance to see the father even once?

It's a lightweight piece (to the extent that any essay in which a grieving father questions God can ever be called "lightweight"), but if you've got five spare minutes, it was one of the better articles I've read today.

From the "Fun with Appropriations" file: the Defense approps bill passed last week includes $20 million for the "commemoration of success" in Iraq. Because Congress likes to be ready.

Update: It was Mitch McConnell (who supports the troops, goddammit).

On Monday morning, Wake-Up Call posted a whole series of new Senate poll numbers, all released by Mason-Dixon within the last 72 hours. Some were better than others, and some were more believable than others, but the sum total of those numbers was this: nothing but good news for Chuck Schumer. (Two things to point out before going on: first, I normally take Mason-Dixon polls with a grain of salt; and second, nearly every single one of these was within the margin of error. But all the same.)

By way of refresher, the Republicans currently hold the Senate 55-44 (and 1). There are 33 seats up for election this year; of those, 19 are pretty safe (12 D, 7 R). That leaves 14 competitive seats, eight of which are currently held by Republicans. To regain the Senate, the Democrats have to protect all of their seats (including the seat Jeffords is vacating in Vermont) and take six of the Republicans' eight. So, to the polls:

There were new numbers for nine races. Of the nine, two were tied: Virginia (thank you, George Allen) and Missouri. Both are currently held by Republicans, and neither was expected a year ago to be as competitive as they've become.

In each of the remaining seven races (Maryland, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Washington), the Democrat was ahead. And four of those (OH, PA, RI, TN) are seats that are currently held by Republicans.

A month ago, the idea that the Democrats could actually retake the Senate was somewhere between "quaint" and "unfathomable." Now... well, I'd like to see the Democrats ahead by actual margins, in an actual poll (no offense, Mason-Dixon). But short of that, this was an awfully nice way to start the week.

So that's how the Republicans are planning to limit the Foley scandal's damage.

Update: Crazy Katherine Harris (D-GA) (I-LA) (R-TN) (D-SC) (R-FL) approves.

Katherine Harris says the media would be "quite disingenuous" to blame the Mark Foley case on Republicans.

In an interview with WESH Channel 2 in Orlando, Harris said, "if anything, the Republicans didn’t know about these issues and we’re going to be very anxious to find out who in the media and on the other side of the aisle (Democrats) knew about it and kept this from the public interest, because our children were at stake."

Bill O'Reilly: Hero of American Journalism.

"Politicians used to be able to come on TV and read a rehearsed answer, and Cronkite and Huntley and Brinkley and those guys had to swallow it," O'Reilly says. "They couldn't give them the O'Reilly arched eyebrow or tell them they were a pinhead."

Seems the Republican leadership may have known about Foley's foibles, and done little. Honestly, could Rahm Emanuel be any happier?

Top House Republicans knew for months about e-mail traffic between Representative Mark Foley and a former teenage page, but kept the matter secret and allowed Mr. Foley to remain head of a Congressional caucus on children’s issues, Republican lawmakers said Saturday.

Rep. Linda Sanchez (D-CA) at the Improv's annual "Funniest Celebrity in Washington":

"The Republicans are getting a little carried away on immigration. They just built a 200-mile wall around my office."

Hi-oh!