VACATION TIME: I'm taking some end-of-summer time off between now and the first of September. I may pop in to post the occasional blog ... but it's also possible I'll manage to avoid the temptation! If you're not already a regular reader, be sure to check in one of the best group blogs around, David Horowitz's Moonbat Central. Wishing happy August dog days to one and all. - Keith

SHEEHAN: Pat Buchanan sees parallels between the anti-war cacophony now coalescing around Cindy Sheehan's drainage ditch encampment and the anti-Vietnam movement's attempt to destroy Nixon. It's hard to avoid the impression that Buchanan, an opponent of the Iraq war from day one, sides with the anti-Bush movement.

Put bluntly, the bottom is falling out of support for the commander in chief. What is remarkable is that no Democrat has stepped forward, as Gene McCarthy did, to lead an antiwar crusade and call for a date certain for withdrawal of U.S. troops. Cindy Sheehan is filling that vacuum.

Christopher Hitchens offers a blistering critique of Sheehan's dubious moral authority:

Sheehan has obviously taken a short course in the Michael Moore/Ramsey Clark school of Iraq analysis and has not succeeded in making it one atom more elegant or persuasive. I dare say that her "moral authority" to do this is indeed absolute, if we agree for a moment on the weird idea that moral authority is required to adopt overtly political positions, but then so is my "moral" right to say that she is spouting sinister piffle. Suppose I had lost a child in this war. Would any of my critics say that this gave me any extra authority? I certainly would not ask or expect them to do so. Why, then, should anyone grant them such a privilege?

MORE FROM MALKIN: As usual, Michelle's got her finger on the immigration pulse, summarizing recent attempts of a few Democrats to get right on the border issue while the Bush administration continues to back-burner the entire immigration controversy.

ROBERTS' SMOOTH SAILING: With NARAL's ad campaign backfiring against the hard left, and with as many as 70 senators poised to support the Roberts nomination, the activists who hoped to Bork him are scaling back their campaign. Why waste their ammo on a sure winner — better to save their resources to defeat Bush's candidate to replace Rehnquist. Their revised strategy is not without risks. If they give conservative Roberts a pass, on what basis will they oppose a second conservative nominee?

The Democrats' decision to hold their fire -- less a formal strategy than an emerging consensus -- has allowed conservatives to husband their resources for future battles. Progress for America, a political group working closely with the White House, had planned to spend $18 million to promote the confirmation of Roberts but now may spend less than half that, according to Republican aides. Democrats said that instead of mounting a headlong assault on Roberts, they plan to use the hearings and the surrounding attention by the news media to remind voters of their party's values, including the protection of rights for individual Americans. The plan calls for emphasizing rights beyond abortion in an effort to appeal to a broader swath of the electorate.

Ah yes: Democrats as champions of "rights for individuals." This from a party that has spent the past two decades organizing Americans into political grievance groups based on race, ethnicity, and gender. If they're serious about their new-found passion for individualism, the Democrats could get busy supporting federal legislation to protect private property owners in the wake of the notorious Kelo ruling (which of course enjoyed the support of Supreme Court liberals and was opposed by conservatives). House Democrats would first have to get their leader on board:

When Nancy Pelosi declares that the rulings of the Supreme Court are inviolable and tantamount to “the voice of God,” as she did recently in the Kelo eminent domain case, she is unconsciously echoing the pro-slavery and segregationist arguments of her Democratic forbears.

THE CINDY SHEEHAN SHOW: The grieving mother is beginning to look like a garden variety demogogue. Kathleen Parker puts it rather more diplomatically:

Sheehan, who opposed the war before her son died, belongs to the movement now. And Bush, regardless of what he personally might wish to do, has responsibilities that far exceed the crowd gathering beyond his Prairie Chapel Ranch....Whatever Sheehan hoped for in the beginning of her watch is irrelevant now. She and her cause have been usurped and distorted by the phenomenon of which she is the center. Her healing will have to wait until the next big story breaks and the media circus moves on.

Sheehan is definitely being used by all the usual (Hate America First) suspects, but the exploitation seems decidely mutual. Sheehan's obviously digging her 15 minutes of fame:

"You get America out of Iraq and Israel out of Palestine and you'll stop the terrorism," Sheehan declares. Sheehan, who is asking for a second meeting with President Bush, says defiantly: "My son was killed in 2004. I am not paying my taxes for 2004. You killed my son, George Bush, and I don't owe you a penny...you give my son back and I'll pay my taxes. Come after me (for back taxes) and we'll put this war on trial." "And now I'm going to use another 'I' word - impeachment - because we cannot have these people pardoned. They need to be tried on war crimes and go to jail."

GET WITH IT, MR. PRESIDENT: Former Republican representative J.C. Watt wonders whether there's any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court that liberals wouldn't oppose. What a ridiculous question. There are many choices Bush could make to satisfy the Democrats. Short list: James Carville, Susan Estrich, Laurence Tribe, Bill Clinton, John Conyers, Maxine Waters, Dennis Kucinich, Howard Zinn. (Not all are attorneys, but the Constitution doesn't require law degrees of federal judges.) If the president weren't so narrow minded and didn't insist on justices who reflect his judicial philosophy — we could move this whole thing along so much more quickly.