Over at the Corner, Mark Steyn links the story of one (yes, one) protester yelling "slaughter the Jews" at Israel's Deputy Foreign Minister and smirks

But don't worry. I'm sure it's only "anti-Zionist."

Besides humor (failed), what is Steyn's point here? Maybe the "slaughter" guy can't distinguish between the country Israel and the Jewish people. I can. Most Jews can, including the ones who live in Israel. Can Mark Steyn? Meanwhile, Steyn's corner colleague John Derbyshire (the Marty Peretz of the National Review is defending Tom Tancredo's call for literacy tests at the polls. But don't worry. I'm sure it's only "literacy supremacism."

Over at the National Review, Ramesh Ponnuru is defending anti-choice folks against criticism for highlighting Tim Tebow's mom's choice not to have an abortion while pushing to take that choice away from her. I'll grant that it's not contradictory for someone to both want abortion to be made illegal and to like it when women who legally could have abortion choose not to. But it's intentionally misleading for a movement seeking a ban on abortion to appeal to the electorate's good feelings about choice by invoking individuals' choices as an argument for prohibition. It's especially cynical given that it's the pro-choice movement that stands up for women threatened coercive abortion or sterilization by the government or their employer. I wrote more about this here and here.

As for Tim and Pam Tebow, apparently they share Focus on the Family's belief that it should be illegal for women like Pam whose doctors advise them to terminate their pregnancy to choose to follow their doctors' advice. So why won't their ad say that? Why not say: "I'm Tim Tebow, football great. I've been blessed with so much in life. I know my life itself is a blessing. Doctors in the Phillipines recommended my Mom abort me because of serious complications in pregnancy. Good thing abortion was illegal in the Phillipines. It should be illegal here in America too." I think Focus on the Family isn't running an ad like that because they know the median American has discomfort about abortion but doesn't want to see it banned. But what does Ramesh Ponnuru think is the explanation?

It's not often I agree with The National Review's Ramesh Ponnuru, but perhaps once every other blue moon it happens. Ponnuru writes:

I think it's time for [Norm Coleman] to give up this fight.

With today's news that Al Franken's lead is actually growing, narrowing Norm Coleman's already extremely narrow path to overtaking Franken, Ponnuru's right. I'm surprised to hear him say this, and I'm not holding my breath for other conservatives to say the same thing (though who would be the next to chime in on this -- David Brooks?). Nevertheless, a semblance of reality from The National Review doesn't often happen.

There's more...

by Nezua Media Consortium Blogger

The nation's eyes are fixed upon a trembling economy. It affects our ability to survive, to thrive, and even think rationally. Today's economic crisis is also impacting the lives of immigrants and immigration reform on multiple levels, be it through provisions to the economic stimulus bill, individual lawmen exceeding the bounds of their office, or a scrambling Pentagon viewing immigrants as easy recruits.

There's more...

What can I say.  I've been very annoyed with National Review's Campaign Spot.  I don't have a problem with people supporting McCain as much as I couldn't handle the horrible arguments he was using.  All he's been doing is cherry picking polls (worse than Drudge even) and trying to say that that was the new reality.  Fortunately last night he over extended himself and I got a chance to get a little revenge.  

There's more...