It now is clear that the much-maligned and “highly unpopular” former Vice President Dick Cheney has defeated the eloquent, popular President Barack Obama in their recent high-profile debate (of sorts) on the closing of the Guantanamo Bay detention center, which holds some 240 prisoners. A Gallup poll of 1015 adults was taken by landline and cell phone from Friday to Sunday and the results were summarized in USA Today yesterday. The key findings:

1. By more than 2-1, those surveyed say Guantanamo shouldn’t be closed. By more than 3-1, they oppose moving some of the accused terrorists housed there to prisons in their own states.
2. Americans were inclined to accept the argument by Cheney and former president George W. Bush that the detention center had made the United States safer. By a 40%-18% margin, those surveyed said the prison had strengthened national security rather than weakened it.
3. Those who want the prison to remain open feel more strongly on the subject that those who want to close it. A 54% majority of those polled say the prison shouldn’t be closed, and that they’ll be upset if the administration moves forward to close it.

You may recall that last month Senate Democrats stripped $80 million to close Gitmo from a spending bill and have thus far blocked any transfer of detainees to U.S. soil. Given the Gallup poll, that position is unlikely to change. Obama faces a dilemma in that he has promised to close Gitmo by early 2010.
In case you missed the rival speeches of Mr. Obama and Mr. Cheney, here they are in their entirety:

As you likely know, the well-known late-term abortionist Dr. George Tiller was murdered yesterday while serving as an usher in his church. Far from being justified, such actions inevitably set back the pro-life movement as they play to the leftist fears of crazed fundamentalists. Remember that Homeland report awhile ago that warned that (among others) “pro-lifers” could be a vital source of domestic terrorism?
Albert Mohler:

Proponents of abortion rights often charge that the rhetoric of the pro-life movement leads to violence. After all, we describe abortion as murder and point to the business of abortion as the murder of the unborn. We make clear that abortion is the taking of innocent human life and that what goes on in abortion clinics is the business of death.
We make these arguments because we know they are true. Abortion is murder. What goes on in those clinics is institutionalized homicide, often for financial profit. Abortion is a moral scandal and a national tragedy and a blight upon the American conscience.
But violence in the name of protesting abortion is immoral, unjustified, and horribly harmful to the pro-life cause. Now, the premeditated murder of Dr. George Tiller in the foyer of his church is the headline scandal — not the abortions he performed and the cause he represented.

Read the whole thing.
Robert George:

Whoever murdered George Tiller has done a gravely wicked thing. The evil of this action is in no way diminished by the blood George Tiller had on his own hands. No private individual had the right to execute judgment against him. We are a nation of laws. Lawless violence breeds only more lawless violence. Rightly or wrongly, George Tilller was acquitted by a jury of his peers. “Vengeance is mine, says the Lord.” For the sake of justice and right, the perpetrator of this evil deed must be prosecuted, convicted, and punished. By word and deed, let us teach that violence against abortionists is not the answer to the violence of abortion. Every human life is precious. George Tiller’s life was precious. We do not teach the wrongness of taking human life by wrongfully taking a human life. Let our “weapons” in the fight to defend the lives of abortion’s tiny victims, be chaste weapons of the spirit.

JT has some other useful links on this topic.

Charles Krauthammer has a typically brilliant column on Sonia Sotomayor, with just one problem: In spite of all her jarring difficulties, Dr. K. says she should be confirmed because “elections have consequences.” He advises Republicans:

Make the case for individual vs. group rights, for justice vs. empathy. Then vote to confirm Sotomayor solely on the grounds — consistently violated by the Democrats, including Sen. Obama — that a president is entitled to deference on his Supreme Court nominees, particularly one who so thoroughly reflects the mainstream views of the winning party. Elections have consequences.

Andy McCarthy picks apart that logic, noting that “at most, the senate owes the president only to have a confirmation vote, not to win a confirmation vote.” His closing remarks:

I don’t think Senators owe any deference on judicial selections. There is no reason to weight the system beyond ordinary politics — if senators vote unreasonably against the president’s good nominees (or rubber stamp his bad ones) voters can punish the senators in the next election. That’s more than enough pressure to do the right thing. But even if I accepted, for argument’s sake, that some deference is owed, it would be very slight deference — not nearly what the president should get for executive branch appointments — and it could be overcome pretty easily if the judicial nominee were bad enough.

I’m with McCarthy on this one.
Update: McCarthy posted additional thoughts.

I previously reported that excessive Facebook use leads to lower grades. Not surprisingly, the same is true of texting, reports Albert Mohler:

Authorities now blame excessive texting for sleep deprivation, distraction in school, poor grades, and even repetitive stress injuries. These teens are texting while they should be sleeping, and they are sleeping with the cell phone set to vibrate so that they can respond to texts from friends without waking parents.