For the last week I’ve been in Bonn and Berlin covering the recent German elections, which resulted in no clear winner. On the one hand the CDU/CSU now have more members than any single party in the Bundestag. On the other hand, because their number dropped from 38.5 percent of the electorate in 2002 to some 35 percent, they and their traditional partners, the Free Democrats, no longer have enough seats to form a government. At the same time, the SPD and the Greens also do not have enough seats to continue ruling. Besides the possibility of a Grand Coalition (CDU/CSU and SPD) and an alliance of leftists under Schröder, there is also talk of a possible Black (CDU/CSU’s color), Yellow (FDP), Green coalition, also known as the Jamaica coalition. This is highly unlikely unless the Greens are willing to make major concessions as a junior partner. Right now, the odds are in favor of a Black-Red alliance. If so, there are rumors that the new foreign minister would be Otto Schily, the current minister of the interior. Current estimates as to how long it will take before Germans have a new government run from a few days to two weeks.

Two words for Mr. Donnelly: Cool. Surface.

This is how an effective, vibrant opposition should conduct itself.

It’s funny, congenial, and not a single cuss word!

The Wershovenist Pig has a Big-Think thesis for buying stocks:

Discounters and chain stores that offer more consumer value will do better in a tighter economy than mid-level and high-end stores, right?

You should chime in to encourage or dismantle this argument, as the Wershovenist Pig will soon have dollars riding on this sort of abstract thinking.

To this end, he now has an analysis of Wal-Mart vs. Target which you’ll no doubt find edifying.

John Hinderaker makes an excellent point about Democrats and Judge Roberts:

This whole Supreme Court nomination story has gotten a little weird, with everyone in suspense over whether the minority Democrats will approve Bush’s nominees. Who cares? Since when does the Senate minority get to establish the critieria for Supreme Court nominations? When Clinton nominated Ruth Ginsburg in 1993, do you remember any discussion of what she would have to do to satisfy the Republicans? No, neither do I. (In the event, she did nothing, and they voted for her anyway.)

The Bull Moose has a similarly smart post:

Roberts is a conventional conservative not a right wing revolutionary jurist.

People for the American Way knows this. The American people know this. The Family Research Council knows this. Ted Kennedy knows this. Sam Brownback knows this. And they will all take their predictable side on the question of his confirmation.

John Roberts is not the Moose’s cup of tea. He will undoubtedly be far too differential to corporate power. But, alas, his candidate for the Presidency lost. And one of the consequences of an election is that the winner chooses Supreme Court vacancies. The view from this bench is that the President gets the benefit of the doubt on nominations – elections have consequences. . . .

Probably, the majority of the Democratic Senators will oppose Roberts. That is tactically unfortunate because their opposition will have less resonance if the President truly nominates an extremist for the O’Connor vacancy – the donkey crying wolf syndrome. Is the Democratic Party merely the sum of its interest groups? It is not unlikely that a large number of Democrats prefer controversial issues such as gay marriage and the pledge of allegiance to be resolved in the legislative process rather than be circumvented by judicial fiat.

Sometimes, an opposition has to dare to say “yea”.

As always, the Democratic party would do better if they listened to the Moose.

Bonus: Beldar notes the stunning difference between the NY Times and Washington Post editorials on Roberts. I think we can safely attribute the Post‘s huge advantage to Ben Wittes. Wittes is one of the finest legal affairs writers in America and while the Post benefits from having his pen for their editorials, I wish he was able to step out under his own byline more often–he deserves the spotlight.

If I was Gail Collins and I was faced with an op-ed vacancy from, say, Paul Krugman, Wittes would be a blockbuster hire.

This stuff is pure Ethan Hunt. And awesome:

Sounds from typing on computer keyboards are distinctive enough to be decoded, allowing security breaches caused by “acoustic snooping,” University of California, Berkeley researchers said on Wednesday.

The researchers said they were able to feed sound recordings of typing on keyboards into a computer and use an algorithm to recover up to 96 percent of the keyboard characters entered by typists.

I didn’t realize that the Eagles were playing the University of San Francisco.

Not that this game means anything. People frequently forget that in the NFL, the first six games of the season have little value so long as you don’t got 1-5. The important thing is to make it to December without any major injuries. That’s when the season really starts.

So since it’s Monday night, let the trash talking between the Cowboys and Skins fans begin. But I’ll ask the question on everyone’s mind: Is Jenny going to wear her old Aikman jersey while she watches the game?

Andrew Sullivan takes a cheap shot at Hugh Hewitt today (even while agreeing with him), calling Hewitt “the Sid Blumenthal of the Bush administration.”

Forget all of the many large ways in which this comparison is silly. There is one small, but very telling difference: Nearly everyone who knows Blumenthal–even his political allies–despises him. Nearly everyone who knows Hewitt–even his political adversaries–likes him.

If you’re the type of person who thinks that character counts, then it’s impossible not to number Hewitt as one of the good guys, regardless of his (or your) politics.

Update, Sat., 12:14 p.m.: Power Line has a list of reasons why the comparison of Hewitt to Blumenthal is ridiculous. A commenter here has something else to add:

If Hewitt is to Bush as Blumenthal was to Clinton, may I propose that Sully is to Bush as Bill Bennet was to Clinton?

That is to say, a humorless self-righteous prick who is quite certain he’s never been wrong about anything. Ever.