Centerfield

I was always under the impression Thune was a moderate to conservative, but I don't really know much about him. Either way, although I am pleased he is voting the right way, I find it ridiculous he is doing so in protest of an Air Force base closure in South Dakota! DOD's list of closures was too light, if anything, but I guess logic means nothing when you are pandering to your constituents.

Well, Thune could hardly do otherwise. After all, he owes his narrow victory to the fact that he and W belonged to the same party and the idea that he could use this supposedly cozy relationship to keep the WH from closing his state's military base. If W isn't going to keep up his end, then Thune won't either.

It's a "You stab my back, I'll stab yours" kinda thing....;-)

You know, I'm one who thinks the UN has problems, but I'm still against Bolton. IMHO, you send blowhards to the hopeless cases, like Iran or N Korea.

Places you want reformed, you want to send somebody thoughful, with an open mind and a willingness to do deals.

So I also think Porter Goss is a big mistake. He reminds me of Bill Casey, who arguably was Reagan's worst mistake - he kept lying to Congress, IMHO screwed up the contras, and was one of the brilliant bulbs (NOT) behind Iran/Contra.

When does the White House break our the "John Thune is the root cause of all the rioting in the Middle East" theory?

I smell a set up here. Maybe they never planned on closing Ellsworth in the first place. After a few weeks of this crap they take Ellsworth of the list and Thune looks like a hero.

Thune needs to make a name for himself. He's a promising candidate for the GOP down the road...very sharp looking guy, telegenic, etc. I hope the moderate conversion is truly from the heart.

I'm gonna wait and see. Thune is obligated to defend his state's pork. The only curious thing is the choice of the offsetting confrontation. And it could indeed be a set-up play to solidify his seat.

I guess that's the difference.... I consider the U.N. far more of a hopeless case (and far less important) then either Iran or N.Korea.....well at least Iran.

The new generation of Iranians seem to be getting more and more fed up with thier Islamic fundementalist leaders. There has been a push in recent years for reform. I'd say that was a pretty good sign for hope.

North Korea is less hopefull, but a system like that can't sustain itself forever. It'll be interesting (and potentialy scary) to see what happens when Kim kicks the bucket.

Both are more important then the UN (IMO) because our dimplomatic stances with them will have real world consequences (for good or ill). With the UN, the majority of what will happen will be the production of endless reams of paper regulations, treaties, findings, etc....for which there will be neither the will nor the ability to enforce.
Nor is the UN likely to change from the inside unless there are dramatic changes in the nature of many of the member states which make it up. Frankly, the UN is the way it because that's exactly the way many of the member states, and their career beaurocrats want it to be.

The most effective thing we could do short of completely scrapping it....would be to refuse to pay any more dues or contributions until a completely independent auditing agency was setup to report on how exactly those funds were distributed.

Iranians have internet, and satellite television. NK'ers don't. Syria has gotten blind-sided by the same thing. They didn't even realize that major opposition communications were there until it was too late to stop it. Now they have to live with it.