Today, RedState urges Gen. Peter Pace “to serve once more a proud and grateful nation that desperately needs the unique leadership only he can offer.” They link to One Last Mission, an “open letter” and donation page to draft Pace to run for U.S. Senate:

General, the American people need your leadership in the U.S. Senate. The outcome of even one Senate race could mean the difference between pushing on towards victory and being driven from the field and rendering meaningless the blood that has been spilt in the sands of Iraq and Afghanistan. We cannot afford to be represented by a September 10th politician. We cannot spare you now.

Earlier this month, the National Review also called to draft Pace, writing, “Virginia Republicans should tell this devoted patriot that he is not done.”

On Saturday, activist Bruce Fealk confronted Rep. Joe Knollenberg (R-MI) about his support for Bush’s Iraq policy and the veto of the bipartisan SCHIP legislation. During the videotaped confrontation, Knollenberg’s Chief of Staff Trent Wisecup had some choice words for Fealk, saying he was “un-American,” “not a citizen” and “blinded by” his “hatred of this country.” In the exchange, Wisecup explained that he’s “speaking for” the Congressman. Watch it:

When the Politico’s John Bresnahan asked Wisecup to define “un-American,” he responded by saying it was “un-American” to support Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA):

It’s un-American to cheer for the imposition of $85 billion of Nancy Pelosi CAF‰ mandates that would destroy the American car companies and the good-paying UAW jobs they provide.

Via Dave Weigel my “I can’t believe this is real” website of the day — One Last Mission.org, dedicated to launching a Draft General Peter Pace movement. Draft him for what? To lose to Mark Warner in the Virginia senate race next fall, of course. What about the fact that he’s shown no inclination to run? Well, “It is, however, your reluctance to serve that suggests to us that you must serve.” Indeed.

Dave points out that there’s a growing trend here as we’ve also seen conservatives pushing Tommy Franks and David Petraeus as political candidates.

Now of course there’s a long tradition of generals (but not, I think, admirals) entering politics in the United States, starting with George Washington. Contemporary conservatives, however, seem to be misunderstanding the tradition in crucial respects. The idea, normally, is to nominate flag officers who are associated with noteworthy victories — from Andrew Jackson to Wesley Clark — or else for a junior officer who showed noteworthy courage in battle (John Kerry, John Kennedy) to run for a lower office. Neither Franks, nor Petraeus, nor Pace is actually popular, probably because insofar as anyone knows who these guys are it’s from their association with a giant unpopular fiasco in Iraq. What the Republicans need to do is find candidates who can distance themselves from this war, not embrace it more closely.

Supreme Court justices reportedly are aren’t thrilled with Clarence Thomas’s new biography. The NY Posts’s Cindy Adams writes, “Phrases swatted about are ‘unseemly’ and ‘breach of decorum.’ Besides unraveling his life story, he has also delved into the ways and hows of the Court. They feel it ‘irresponsible’ for a sitting Supreme Court Justice to write about The Process.”