Larry Kudlow is a terrific television host, full of energy and the love of selling --which is why he's a writer's dream when a book comes out. On today's show he plugged Painting the Map Red from start to finish of two segments, but he did so while calling attention to its controversial recommendations and assuring that the lefty Newsweek columnist Jonathan Alter and Chicago Tribune MSMer Jim Warren got some shots in while Townhall's Joel Mowbray got to add some depth to the center-right forces.

In short, a rollicking good two segments of television with smart, sharp panelists spurred on by a humor filled, somewhat edgy host.

Memo to NBC: Take a look at double-breasting LK with a pure politics show on MSNBC.

And here's a quick recap of yesterday's fun slug-fest with Fred Barnes and Bob Beckel, moderated by Mark Tapscott.

And Human Events reports on my appeal to exile Lincoln Chafee from the GOP to which he is attached in name only.

Now, to Larry King's studio...

Landed back on the west coast to discover I'm booked on Larry King Live tonight, along with Ed Schultz, Randi Rhodes and Martha Zoller.

This will complete the television and radio decathalon, which since Wednesday has included Sean Hannity's, Laura Ingraham's and my own radio show, as well as Hannity & Colmes, The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer, Hardball with Chris Matthews, The Situation with Tucker Carlson, and the two Larrys today --King and Kudlow.

I wouldn't push this hard except for the fact that not losing the 2006 election means that much. A Senate with 60 responsible votes --a result which can be achieved-- would mean real support for the war, progress towards energy security, restoring the judicial nomination process to the way it was pre-Bork, permanent tax relief and continued economic growth, a secure border, and yes, even some spending control.

So, buy the book. Buy a few, in fact, and send them to the inert and the overconfident --beginning with Republicans in the House and Senate.

And cast your vote in the semifinal Radioblogger poll for the best photoshop entry among more than 200 submitted.

Time for four hours of sleep before the dash west for the afternoon broadcast. To meet your reading needs in the AM, be sure to read Buck Sargent's latest, T.F.Boggs and of course Mudville Gazette.

And BlueCrabBoulevard has a letter from a soldier in Kuwait that deserves a close read.

My book sprint ended with an interesting conversation with Tucker Carlson tonight. Tucker's not much of a "party man," and I certainly didn't convert him though I seemed to give him pause.

Nothing happens legislatively in this country unless the majority party wants it to.

Sometimes the minority can block things, like drillling in ANWR and judicial nominees.

But nothing happens in Congress if the majority does not want it to occur.

If the GOP fritters away its majorities, kiss the SCOTUS and most other crucial issues goodbye.

Which is why barnstorming for Painting the Map Red is worth the effort.

The prospect of Democrats in control in time of war means a replay of the Vietnam War endgame.

And that ought to concentrate the mind.

HumanEvents provides a write-up of one of Thursday's events, and Townhall and Congressman Jack Kingston chart another.

Do your Congressman/Senator/candidate a favor, and go to Amazon.com and send them a gift of the book.

Regnery has made a chapter of the new book available on line, and after hearing the reactions my analysis prompted today, I am certain you will want to read it all.

Order it here.

On Hannity & Colmes last night, and before a Heritage Foundation audience (filmed for C-SPAN broadcast in April), long time Democratic strategist Bob Beckel repeatedly declared that after having read my excellent book twice, he is hoping the GOP adopts all of my suggestions.

When was the last time a Democratic strategist leveled with an audience over the best interests of the Republican Party? Beckel, a very affable fellow, knows that the book is the blueprint, a conclusion I think almost everyone I had a chance to talk with today agreed upon.

I want to persuade you to persuade other GOP base voters and through all of us the party leadership that this has to be a campaign in support of the president and one that rests on a full throated defense of the war, of the military, of the judicial appointments, of religious faith and of marriage.

If the GOP stays stuck on stupid --spinning away on side issues and running away from W-- we can lose both the House and the Senate.

What do the Super Bowl III Jets, the 1980 Team USA Hockey squad at Lake Placid and the Congressional Democrats of 2006 share in common?

The widespread belief among observors that none of them could win it all.

In a 24 hour period that included interviews with H&C, Chris Matthews, Tucker Carlson (later tonight), CBN and the consummate professional Wolf Blitzer, as well as sessions with think tank staffers and a half-dozen Members and their staffs it is obvious that the feeling of GOP malaise is widespread, fueled by the bitter debate over immigration law.

But it was also obvious that the moment the focus is put back on the Democrats --as it was by Fred Barnes, Frank Gaffney and me at the Heritage event-- the momentum shifts and dramatically so. Bob B. ended our time together unable to mount a defense of the national security reliability of the Dems other than the "people grow in office" argument.

Which isn't an argument. It is a concession.

If the problem is the war, the solution can't be the Democrats.

If the problem is illegal immigration, the solution can't be the Democrats.

If the problem is religious freedom, the defense of marriage, or any aspect of the economy, the solution can't be the Democrats.

It isn't too late to turn this cycle into one of solid gains for the GOP, but the effort has to be disciplined, and it has to begin now.

Get the book and get one for a friend who is mildly or even greatly dismayed with the GOP.

My first meetings in the AM in DC are with Mark Tapscott's gang, and then with Congressman Jack Kingston --the blogging Congressman's-- band of believers.

The first turf is easiest to claim. Mark and Congressman K prove that every day.

BTW: I learned from Mark T (who learned from Ed Morrissey) that the "anonymous hold" on legislation and nominees is dead.

This is a big deal, and hats off to Leader Frist and the GOP Majority for getting it done.

Now can Brett Kavanaugh and Terrance Boyle get votes?

After a Hannity & Colmes appearance along with Bob Beckel, it is off to DC for more media for the new book. (Part of which will be a Hewitt-Beckel-Fred Barnes panel on the 2006 elections at the Heritage Foundation.) No posting as a result in the morning, but more follow-up on the Ware interview:

MySandman 1
My Sandman 2
My Sandman 3
Ed Driscoll
BlogRevolt
BirdofParadise
Danegerous
Penraker
TheBadRepublicanMan

My book has been to some unusal places. (It takes some time to load.)

CBS News' Public Eye's Brian Montopoli reviews the Ware interview, but neglects to tell us if he thought the Russians were better off under Stalin or Khrushchev.

The Vox Blogoli 2006.1 questions are listed below. Here are the contributors thus far:

Ed Driscoll
MoltenThought
BlogReport
DaneGerous
BirdofParadise
TheRealUglyAmerican
Democracy Project
One Destination
LGF
ImmodestProposals
AlwaysJason
JustaWoman
OurKitchenTable
Cockalorum
The Asylum
View from a Height

If you want your post listed, send me a url via e-mail to hugh@hughhewitt.com, and include Vox Blogoli in the subject line.

UPDATE:

CJRDaily, quite dishonestly, suggests I was comparing myself to a Baghdad correspondent in the interview. Transparent idiocy of this sort usually doesn't get a reply from me, but the point I was making to Mr. Ware bears repeating: The front lines of the war change, from NYC, to Bali, to London, to Beslan, to everywhere the jihadists want to strike. Mr. Ware has special knoweldge of the precincts around Iraq, but not of the jihadist threat, and he cannot trump critics of his coverage by arguing he's in harm's way.

CJR Daily's Paul McCleary manufactures a quote and ignores the very thing I was saying, which tells you all you need to know about his integrity.

Denver's Archbishop Charles Chaput makes the argument that extending statutes of limitations in cases involving the molestation of children may or may not be a good idea, but that it cannot be a good idea when the extension is available only to plaintiffs suing the Roman Catholic Church.

It seems to me that such a narrow statute may in fact violate the Free Exercise Clause as interpreted by the 1990 decision in Employment Division v. Smith and the 1993 decision in Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah. The llaw is neither neutral in its application, or one of general applicability, so the state will have to defend its act as one of "compelling state interest," which I think is hard to do when victims of public school teachers are not also extended the additional time to file.

Here is the beginning of a recent interview with the Archbishop. I will ask the Smart Guys this week if they share my Smith/Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye concern:

Archbishop Charles Chaput, O.F.M. Cap., of Denver is leading a fight against efforts by legislators and trial attorneys to roll back the civil statute of limitations for sex-abuse cases in Colorado. In an email interview with Our Sunday Visitor, he spoke about his decision to vigorously fight what he sees as an unfair attack on the Church.

OSV: What motivated you to take such a strong and public stance on the issue of statute of limitations?

Archbishop Chaput: Statutes of limitations exist for very good reasons that have nothing to do with any Church. Memories fade. People die. Evidence gets old or lost. In general, changing statutes of limitation or making them too long is a bad idea, and most law enforcement professionals know that.

Of course, certain crimes are so terrible, like murder, that no statute of limitation is warranted. Some people argue that the sexual abuse of minors is such a crime. Catholics don’t necessarily oppose that approach. Many Catholics are parents. They very rightly sympathize with victims and want to protect their own children. But the Catholic community does insist that all such laws, reporting timeframes and penalties apply equally to everyone and every institution, with no hidden escape clauses.

Unfortunately, most state laws don’t treat public and private entities equally when it comes to claims arising from the sexual abuse of children. In almost every state, public officials use a combination of governmental immunity, very brief reporting timeframes and very low financial damage caps to make it difficult for anyone to sue public institutions – including public schools.

Religious and private institutions enjoy no such lop-sided protections. The evidence now shows that public schools are a major environment for adult sexual misconduct and abuse with minors. But most state laws effectively ignore that.

In Colorado, under current (February 2006) law, a parent whose child is sexually abused in a public school is barred from suing the school because of governmental immunity. Even if a public school waived its immunity, which is unlikely, the child would have only 180 days to provide formal notice of a claim against the school. And even then, the maximum damages the child could recover are only $150,000.

For the identical sexual abuse in a Catholic parish, there is no immunity, no notice requirement, no $150,000 damage cap, and a much longer statute of limitations. This is why the litigation industry – and that’s exactly what it has become; a very lucrative revenue-producing industry – targets private institutions and ignores the public sector. There’s no money in suing public schools.

By the way -- and this is important -- keep in mind that we're really talking about two different law codes, criminal and civil, when discussing statutes of limitations.

Criminal statutes of limitations can't be changed retroactively. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that as unconstitutional. They can be modified or abolished in a go-forward fashion, but that's a much less heated discussion.

In contrast, some courts have ruled that civil statutes of limitations can be abolished or changed retroactively. Civil law also has a much lower threshold for proof. So what's happening is this. The litigation industry, which especially focuses on suing Catholic institutions, is working to change the civil laws across the country and impose massive financial damages on Catholic and other private institutions – retroactively. They claim it's about justice, but it’s very hard to see why it would be “just” for innocent Catholic families today to have their community crippled because of the actions of evil or sick individuals 25 to 60 years ago.

The LAWeekly's Bill Bradley has the scoop, as he has from start-to-finish on the story.

Majority Leader Boehner gets it exactly right. He should be on the cable nets tonigth saying exactly the same thing (provided he doesn't bump me from H&C):

WASHINGTON, D.C. - House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) issued the following statement today on the "security" agenda offered by Democrat leaders Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Harry Reid (D-NV):

"The Democrats' years of negligence in addressing the real safety and security needs of the American people provide a very clear choice between Republicans and Democrats on security issues.

"While Democrats have openly advocated cutting and running from our efforts to support democracy in Iraq, Republicans continue to build upon our strong record on national security by funding our troops fighting terror around the world and supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.

"While Democrats seem more interested in protecting the rights of terrorists than the American people, Republicans passed the PATRIOT Act to give law enforcement the tools necessary to combat terrorism, protect our citizens, and secure our communities.

"While Democrats focus more on protecting the rights of illegal immigrants than enforcing our immigration laws, Republicans have voted to secure our borders, give law enforcement new tools to enforce our immigration laws, and help prevent terrorist and criminal aliens from moving freely throughout our society.

"The Democrats, led by Nancy Pelosi, opposed the Patriot Act, opposed REAL ID legislation, and opposed efforts to strengthen and secure our borders. And they remain unable and unwilling to articulate a cohesive strategy for supporting our troops and winning the War on Terror.

"When it comes to national security, their answer is the same as it is for everything else: no. A media stunt will not eclipse their record of obfuscation and neglect on national and border security."

National Review's Jim Geraghty calls attention to the rumors about strikes on Iran --past and present.

Wretchard has a long post on conditions in Baghdad, and concludes with a pessimistic note:

The raids on Moqtada al-Sadr's men and the overt US opposition to Ibrahim al-Jaafari suggests the US is determined to excise what it considers to be hostile political factions by force if necessary, to clear the way for a possible unity government to emerge. Time will soon tell whether it will work or whether Iraq as a unitary nation is hopelessly compromised.

The posts on interview with Time Magazine Baghdad bureau chief Michael Warecontinue to roll in and I will continue to add links to them to the list here. (Scroll down.)

If you want yours added, please include "Vox Blogoli 2006.1" in the subject line of the e-mail containing the URL. Send it to hugh@hughhewitt.com.)

I hope Tim Blair, Jay Rosen, Howard Kurtz and the gang at CJRDaily get around to reading the interview and commenting upon it. Ware's approach to his job is, well, unique. When big institutions have their people cross big lines --and Ware has crossed them-- the professionals should at least take note.

Baylor denies Francis Beckwith tenure. As Chequer Board's Max Gross puts it:

[F]rom the perspective of a casual observer it seems hard to avoid the conclusion that Beckwith's denial is, well, not quite motivated by academic considerations. You'd think a major Baptist university could find a place at the table for someone of Beckwith's theological and political views, especially given his outstanding calibre and accomplishment.

Gross also points to this comment by Rod Dreher:

Sources at Baylor tell me that the well-known Evangelical scholar Francis Beckwith was denied tenure today by Baylor University. This is major news. Dr. Beckwith, a distinguished philosopher, has what academic insiders tell me is a stellar publication record. He is nationally renown. He is also -- and I suspect this is what did him in at Baylor -- openly conservative. The fact that a Baptist university cannot bring itself to award tenure to a scholar of Dr. Beckwith's stature is scandalous -- and will cause shock waves beyond Waco. Watch.

The deep illness of the university world is on display again.