Incumbent Republican Deborah Pryce is declared the winner in Ohio 15 by 1,055 votes. The race will now go into a mandatory recount.

While in London two weeks ago, I visited with Dr. Liam Fox, MP, the Conservative Party's "shadow defense minister." We spoke about Iraq, Iran's nuclear program and NATO. The NATO meetings this week in Riga are important because NATO's operations in Afghanistan are stretching its resources thin, and there - even now - insufficient cooperation between nations' forces, reducing their effectiveness. I asked Dr. Fox why.

He said that one basic problem is the French, whose intransigence in cooperation with NATO is an historic fact. But more than the French problem, most of the nations that provide forces to the NATO operation don't really operate as a unified force. He said, "More of a worry (than French intransigence) is the fact that we have 37 countries in Afghanistan but with more than 70 operating caveats. The [NATO] Secretary General's view is not that our need was for more troops but the need to be able to use the troops that are there already." The Brits view themselves part of a NATO force, as do the Americans, but other nations' take the opposite view. Fox said, "The Germans, Italians and the Spanish are not as maneuverable and deployable for our commanders as they need to be to make an effective NATO operation." This lack of cooperation in the biggest out-of-theater NATO operation bodes ill for NATO's future. NATO is facing a big challenge: the European Union's planned defense force. It would compete with NATO for resources, and would break the Atlantic relationship between Europe and the United States. Fox isn't in favor of it.

"NATO is really at an important crossroads here," Dr. Fox said. "We Conservatives still believe that our relationship with the United States is still the most important defense relationship that we have and to move away from that transatlantic defense identity towards a European defense identity would be a huge mistake for a number of reasons.

"Our European partners don't spend enough on defense...The idea that we would be able to make up for the protective defense umbrella that we get from a partnership with the United States would be laughable if it weren't tragic. Second reason is that, of course, there is no coherence in European foreign policy outlook as was shown adequately by the situation in the Balkans...Third, we could never see the EU take over a defense role because we couldn't accept a supranational body ever committing our troops to battle."

There is a value to NATO, Fox said, that goes beyond its charter as a military alliance. It has a "brand name" and reputation that puts it on a special level. Fox said, " In public opinion polls in the United Kingdom, NATO has the same...is regarded as having the same ability to confirm moral legitimacy as the United Nations has...NATO is regarded as a force that has not only moral but legal legitimacy."

Fox believes in the Atlantic partnership, and in NATO. Divorcing America from Europe - by action of either side - is, in his view, a bad idea. "American isolationism is a bad thing for the world. Like it or not, America is the global superpower and that position by itself confers duties as well as benefits," he said. One of these duties is to hold NATO together.

I hadn't appreciated that NATO's reputation was one that could, like the UN in so many American and European minds, be a source of international legitimacy for its actions. We should be thinking of NATO in those terms, and building - and rebuilding - its abilities to make best use of it.

John Edwards's crusade against Wal-Mart hits another bump in the form of this editorial smackdown by the New Hampshire Union-Leader:

Former Sen. John Edwards is to spend an hour at the Manchester Barnes & Noble tonight promoting his new book. We find his choice of venue very interesting.

In Manchester, the local Wal-Mart store sits right behind the Barnes & Noble. It has more floor space, a parking lot several times the size of Barnes & Noble's, and is easier to access by car or public transportation.

But Edwards would not be caught dead inside a Wal-Mart. Saying that the company pays its employees too little, Edwards has embarked on an anti-Wal-Mart crusade. He instructs his staff members and all Americans not to shop at Wal-Mart.

"Wal-Mart makes plenty of money. They need to pay their people well," Edwards said at a Pittsburgh anti-Wal-Mart rally in August.

So naturally Edwards is holding his book signing at Barnes & Noble instead of Wal-Mart. Which is too bad for his anti-low-wages campaign, because in Manchester Wal-Mart pays hourly employees more than Barnes & Noble does.

The Barnes & Noble where Edwards will hawk his book pays $7 an hour to start. The Wal-Mart that sits just yards away pays $7.50 an hour.

Oh, the humanity!

It gets better. Read the rest.

Curt Weldon lost his seat three weeks ago, but the FBI investigation into dealings between Weldon, his daughter's consulting firm, and businessman John Gallagher continues apace. The Philadelphia Inquirer has the details - and they aren't pretty. Here's one example involving Weldon's daughter's consulting firm Solutions Worldwide and the Russian natural-gas giant Itera International Energy:

Weldon set up a Library of Congress dinner for Itera in 2002 and, on the floor of Congress, pushed for a federal grant to the firm. A month later, Itera hired Solutions for $500,000 a year.

Whether or not this meets the legal standard of a quid pro quo, it sure seems like an obvious bit of influence peddling. Even more apparent, it's a grotesque violation of common sense for a Congressman to be in any way involved with a party - or even the process - that may result in the awarding of business to a family member.

Weldon isn't alone. One of the consequences of spawning a professional legislative class in this country is the development of family connections in government-related businesses. Tom Daschle's wife was a high-powered lobbyist engaging in business while he was setting the agenda for the minority in the Senate. John Murtha's brother currently works for a firm that lobbies the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee (which Murtha will Chair in the new Congress) on behalf of defense contractors. John Doolittle's wife banked a bunch of money from Brent Wilkes as a "campaign consultant" for her husband. Tom DeLay's wife and daughter made a half-million in salary and consulting fees between 2001 and 2006 for helping run his campaigns and political action committees.

These are just a few examples that come to mind, though with a bit of investigation I'll bet the list of spouses, brothers, sisters, sons and daughters who are in government-related business and/or on a political payroll would run another few pages at least. That doesn't make all these relationships illegal or unethical, mind you, but it certainly does raise concern - especially when the concept of a "conflict of interest" appears to be so foreign to many publicly elected officials.

America is still the most charitable nation on earth. According to the Christian Science Monitor, a new book on the subject of charitable giving by Syracuse University economist Arthur Brooks also comes to the conclusion that "conservatives are better givers than liberals:"

This pattern is less about politics, he [Brooks] says, than about charity-linked lifestyles that are most common to people who call themselves conservatives: religious commitment, marriage and children, and entrepreneurship.

The conventional wisdom in Washington is the Democrats have a winning issue with the public on whether the government should negotiate with the drug companies to set prices. I'm not so sure.

This exchange from Brit Hume's roundtable by Mort Kondracke illuminates how Republicans can win on this issue.

KONDRACKE: J.D. Power and Associates, the consumer satisfaction people, have surveyed this and 75 percent of seniors say that they are happy with the prescription part D, the prescription drug program as it exists.

HUME: Well, that may mean they're happy with the help they're getting, but that doesn't mean they think they're paying fair prices.

KONDRACKE: Well, they're paying lower prices than anybody expected. The average premium was expected to be $34 a month per average Medicare premium it's down to $27 a month.

HUME: And this gives them an insurance policy that pays for their drugs?

KONDRACKE: Right, I mean look, what I'm tempted to say and I will say is that, you know, Milton Freedman has passed away in more ways than one. I mean, the Democrats do not belief in the private market -- private competition. The way the Medicare prescription drug plan works is that private insurance companies negotiate formularies with these various drug companies and they have lowered the price.

The Medicare system will not negotiate the price; it will set the price, the way it sets the price for regular Medicare procedures, doctor procedures. And what you have then is government control of the pharmaceutical industry, which is going to be a disaster.

The reason that V.A. prices are lower is, it's basically a socialized medical system. You go to a V.A. doctor, you go to a V.A. hospital, you go to a V.A. pharmacy and the V.A. pharmacies only have 25 percent of the drugs that seniors actually use all the time. So, you know, it doesn't work.

The private market does work. But the Democrats don't believe in it.

This is an issue Republicans can win with the public, and more importantly, can win with voters in the middle where they lost this election. Independents and moderates understand exactly the point Kondracke is making that the private market works better the government when it comes to their health care.

The Democrats will have the PR carrot of lower prices, but if Republicans can credibly counter that the lower prices will come at the expense of the quality of care, and future medical advances, this issue will work well with independent voters they will need to get back in the majority.

Erin Aubry Kaplan offers a misguided effort comparing Michael Richards to O.J. as proof there is "greater tolerance for a white man's unsavory behavior than a black man's." Kaplan writes:

I'm not equating racist invective with charges of double homicide. But the reality is that there is far more tolerance for a white person's unseemly behavior than for similar behavior of somebody who isn't white, especially if the unseemliness involves race. Richards' "racist rant" has been described as a terrible but isolated incident. O.J., meanwhile, is condemned for his character.

What a terribly weak argument. Kaplan is so desperate to shoehorn these two things together to prove some sort of racial double standard she completely misses the point. Michael Richards is finished as a performer - if he wasn't already. Richards is stained forever by his behavior this week. No one will be able to sit through a single rerun of Seinfeld from this point forward without making a mental note of Richards' racist rant.

In that sense, Richards is exactly like O.J.: you simply can't look at anything O.J. has ever done, whether it's a football highlight or a clip from the Naked Gun, without seeing him as an utterly unrepentant double-murderer. (Unlike Kaplan, I'm not ambivalent about whether O.J. is a killer or not).

Kaplan says she's "not equating racist invective with charges of double homicide" except that that's exactly what she's doing. And by that measure, Michael Richards is paying a much greater price for his sin than James Orenthal Simpson is paying for his.

So Kaplan's comparison is bogus, but what about her larger point? Is there a greater tolerance for the "unsavory behavior" of whites than blacks?

When it comes to racially insensitive language, I'd say the answer is just the opposite. It seems to me that whites are generally held to a higher standard, for obvious reasons, and there is more scrutiny and less tolerance for anything that might possibly construed as racist or bigoted.

(One notable exception that springs to mind is Robert Byrd using the "n-word" on television a few years back. Even though Byrd used the term to characterize the demeanor of white adolenscents, it's something a Republican would would have been severely punished for.)

As far as other "unsavory behavior" goes, I don't know there's proof of a racial double standard. Is Robert Blake any less of a pariah than Simpson? Was Jason Blair treated differently than Stephen Glass? Perhaps there are examples out there that I'm missing, if anyone can think of some that help prove Kaplan's point please send them through.

If Kaplan wants to argue about racial double standards in the legal system (disparities in sentencing, the death penalty, etc), fine. Let's hear it. Otherwise, her attempt to compare Michael Richards and O.J. as proof of some broad racial double standard in our society just doesn't hold water.

Erin Aubry Kaplan offers a misguided effort comparing Michael Richards to O.J. as proof there is "greater tolerance for a white man's unsavory behavior than a black man's." Kaplan writes:

I'm not equating racist invective with charges of double homicide. But the reality is that there is far more tolerance for a white person's unseemly behavior than for similar behavior of somebody who isn't white, especially if the unseemliness involves race. Richards' "racist rant" has been described as a terrible but isolated incident. O.J., meanwhile, is condemned for his character.

What a terribly weak argument. Kaplan is so desperate to shoehorn these two things together to prove some sort of racial double standard she completely misses the point. Michael Richards is finished as a performer - if he wasn't already. Richards is stained forever by his behavior this week. No one will be able to sit through a single rerun of Seinfeld from this point forward without making a mental note of Richards' racist rant.

In that sense, Richards is exactly like O.J.: you simply can't look at anything O.J. has ever done, whether it's a football highlight or a clip from the Naked Gun, without seeing him as an utterly unrepentant double-murderer. (Unlike Kaplan, I'm not ambivalent about whether O.J. is a killer or not).

Kaplan says she's "not equating racist invective with charges of double homicide" except that that's exactly what she's doing. And by that measure, Michael Richards is paying a much greater price for his sin than James Orenthal Simpson is paying for his.

So Kaplan's comparison is bogus, but what about her larger point? Is there a greater tolerance for the "unsavory behavior" of whites than blacks?

When it comes to racially insensitive language, I'd say the answer is just the opposite. It seems to me that whites are generally held to a higher standard, for obvious reasons, and there is more scrutiny and less tolerance for anything that might possibly construed as racist or bigoted.

(One notable exception that springs to mind is Robert Byrd using the "n-word" on television a few years back. Even though Byrd used the term to characterize the demeanor of white adolenscents, it's something a Republican would would have been severely punished for.)

As far as other "unsavory behavior" goes, I don't know there's proof of a racial double standard. Is Robert Blake any less of a pariah than Simpson? Was Jason Blair treated differently than Stephen Glass? Perhaps there are examples out there that I'm missing, if anyone can think of some that help prove Kaplan's point please send them through.

If Kaplan wants to argue about racial double standards in the legal system (disparities in sentencing, the death penalty, etc), fine. Let's hear it. Otherwise, her attempt to compare Michael Richards and O.J. as proof of some broad racial double standard in our society just doesn't hold water.

Incumbent Republicans Heather Wilson (NM-1) and Jean Schmidt (OH-2) both clinch wins in their respective races.

Races still outstanding:

* NC-8: Incumbent Republican Robin Hayes is clinging to a 339-vote lead.
* OH-15: Incumbent Republican Deb Pryce holds a lead of 3,717 votes over Democrat Mary Jo Kilroy. Thousands of provisional ballots are in the process of being verified and/or counted.
* FL-13: Democrat Christine Jennings is challenging the result in this race, a 369 vote loss to Republican Vern Buchanan.

A couple of emails in response to my post on Only the Poor and Depressed Join the Military?

Good article. Campos gives me a pain. I went through the weekly Camp Lejeune paper which listed all the Marines who have so far died in Iraq. 47% were from the 13 states, including Indian territory, of the 1861-1865 Confederacy.

I guess the Left has a problem processing facts....... (I.E. "......the kids from the projects in Rangel's Brooklyn congressional district and from depressed farming towns in North Dakota, and from East Los Angeles barrios -....... do the fighting and the dying.")

**********
The sad thing is that so many on the right actually got their knickers into such a twist over a total non-event as Kerry's so called oh so awful remarks daring to insult the intelligence of those in the military in the first place....but the reality of the reality is how accurate his remarks were. I'm sure you wouldn't report it, but ABC recently went undercover to capture the, shall we say, less than straight forward techniques used to lure recruits into the armed forces. The results were shocking in two different ways.

The techniques themselves were infuriating...deceptions, false claims, and out and out lies were told to many of these prospective enlistees....kind of sounds like the same things used on the American public to get us into Iraq in the first place, but I digress. However, in addition to the deceit, what was truly shocking is that their lies actually worked. What do I mean? Well, some of these recruiters told these young men and women that in fact the "war in Iraq was over," or that "we are bringing our troops home from Iraq even as we speak," and so on. Now, I don't know about you, but I find it stunning that not only would they go out on a limb and tell such bold faced lies, but that their audience is that stupid to actually believe that the war was in fact over............it's as if a big chunk of those most likely to enlist don't ever pick up a newspaper, turn on the news, or basically have a freaking clue as to what is what...and the recruiters knew this, and didn't hesitate to lie to them about the war being over. If they were all indeed "educated" these kids would have told the recruiters to go to hell....instead, they listened, and signed up! It might have come out of his mouth in a less than pretty way, but of course Kerry was accurate in what he was saying, and this ABC undercover report is a shocking testament to how uneducated many who sign up really are....it's just not politically correct to say so.