EVENING UPDATE, JANUARY 21, 2008

•  This just in.  The government of Saudi Arabia has asked hotels in the kingdom to now admit women traveling alone...as long as the police are alerted.  According to the AP, women may now also stay in a furnished apartment without a male guardian.  The issue of unfurnished apartments has apparently not been addressed.

Thus we see, laid out before us, what swell guys the Saudi princes are.  Ms. Magazine, which last week turned down an ad lauding three leading Israeli women, will no doubt rush reporters to the kingdom to explore this breakthrough, this affirmation of women's rights.  Look for adoring pictures of the Saudi ruling family at your local gas station.

Plan your vacation now.

The AP story, praise be, is tough on Saudi Arabia, which spends tens of millions of dollars in this country every year, and maybe more, to buy influence and image.  Our colleges accept their money while affirming feminism on campus.  Maybe this story will wake some people up to the fact that our "close ally" has centuries to go before its practices become acceptable to a civilized world.

•  The Seattle Post-Intelligencer demonstrates, as it has so many wonderful times, why Americans are losing faith in the press.  Under the austere heading of (drum roll) the "Seattle Post-Intelligencer Editorial Board" - I'd love to have tofu with this group - the paper denounces President Bush's latest perfidy.  His crime?  He continues to warn against the danger of Iran.  Ah, such a sin.  The paper tells us:

It seems once this administration has decided to declare another country an enemy -- and, potentially, attack it -- little will change the course it has blindly set for itself. Not even the intelligence provided by one of its own agencies.

I know that I'm moved, and I trust you are too, by the sudden deference paid by the liberal press to our intelligence agencies.  This is new love.  These same papers applauded as their political heroes wrecked those agencies in the seventies, and demeaned them in the nineties.  And they will do it again if we give them the elected chance.  But if some intelligence report says something the left likes, suddenly the authors are national heroes.  The Seattle Post-Intelligencer Editorial Board also says, with utter certainty, that "Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapons program now."  Not even the recent, reckless National Intelligence Estimate, written in such a way as to undercut President Bush, said that.  It simply said that one small part of the Iranian weapons program may, or may not, have been suspended.  The most important ingredient, the enriching of uranium, continues.

This is serious stuff, to be dealt with by adults.  President Bush is correct in continuing to warn against a theocracy with a vast nuclear program, increasingly dangerous missiles, and an ideology of hate.  Maybe the Seattle editorial crowd thinks it's far away from danger.  Many people thought that in the last century.  Their names are on tombstones.

•  Ralph Nader says he will soon decide whether to run for president this year.  What he does is so cruel, keeping the millions waiting.  The crowds are in the street, their yearning apparent, but Ralph doesn't decide.  He can't do this to us.  Send letters, please.  The man, especially if he drafts Cynthia McKinney as his vice-presidential choice, is a shoo-in.

•  Robert Novak, a columnist about whom I have decidedly mixed feelings, also happens to be a damned good reporter.  He's reporting that John McCain is starting to win over the Republican establishment, and he documents the report.  Late polls show McCain defeating Guiliani in Rudy's home state of New York.  If they prove accurate on Super Tuesday, Rudy will probably be put away.  McCain's first major hurdle, though, is the Florida primary next Tuesday. The latest Rasmussen poll shows him five points behind Romney, who's written large checks in the state.  A McCain loss in Florida, by, say, two or three points, wouldn't be a huge setback, but a win would have dramatic psychological consequences.  The national polls increasingly point to a McCain-Hillary race.

I just received a note from a conservative reader saying he was surprised that I say nice things about McCain, and that he'll stay home on election day if McCain is the GOP nominee.  I disagree.  I share the concerns about McCain, and they are serious, but consider the foreign-policy alternative if Hillary or Barack take the oath next January.  In 1968, many Democrats stayed home in an ideological snit over Hubert Humphrey's nomination, because Humphrey, as Lyndon Johnson's vice president, supported the Vietnam war.  The stay-at-homes elected Nixon, who also supported the war.  Punishing your own party rarely results in anything good.  The party almost always descends into bitterness and recrimination.

Many Republicans - we forget this - were bitter over Dwight Eisenhower's nomination in 1952, preferring "Mr. Republican," Robert Taft.  They felt Eisenhower was not sufficiently committed to Republican doctrine.  They were right, but Ike's election saved the Republican Party by giving it a time in power after 20 years in the wilderness. Rarely, in a nominee, do you get everything you want.  Even Ronald Reagan had signed some liberal legislation when he was governor of California.  Remember:  On election day, there's no prize for second place.

Be back tomorrow.

Posted on January 21, 2008.