Black Box Report

What is it in the Alaskan water? Two-thirds of their federal representatives are under investigation. Sen. Ted Stevens, certainly the more colorful character, is famous for his "bridge to nowhere", describing the internet via a tubes and trucks metaphor, and generally coming across as, what's the term...a little cuckoo bananas. What, don't believe me? Check it out:

Bill Allen, the bribe-happy Veco CEO, used to hand out hundred-dollar bills to Alaskan state legislators, and they "renovated" Stevens' home by putting it on stilts and building a second story under it. Alaska's crazy!

And speaking of handing out hundred dollar bills to state legislators, Stevens' little nepotism racket ties into that:

Have you heard about his son Ben Stevens? He's an Alaskan state senator and he's also under investigation for all kinds of mischief. It's all of that "family values" that gets me warm and fuzzy on the inside, you know?!

And now, between his love of government pork and these new corruption charges, non-profit government watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington says perhaps Ted shouldn't be the guy minding the register:

CREW thinks it's a good idea if the most egregious mishandler of cash in Washington isn't sitting on the committee that doles out all the cash. They're calling for Stevens to lose his seat on the Senate Appropriations Committee. (He's also the ranking member on the Commerce Committee.) No one thought of this earlier?

Democrats have only had control less than a year, and they've been a little busy sorting through various Bush administration scandals. Besides, you didn't expect the last Republican-controlled congress to do anything about it, did you? Of course, with the stench of corruption in Alaska as bad as week-old salmon, conservative blogs have suddenly decided that NOW is the time to jump on the Dump Ted bandwagon:

We need a primary challenger against Ted Stevens today. We also need to make sure the House and Senate pass real earmarks reform that includes prohibiting members of congress's relatives from lobbying on issues before their parents or spouses or children.

If Stevens goes down like "Duke" Cunningham and Bob Ney, passing earmark reform and an Alaskan primary challenge won't be problems.

And in honor of the man who gave me the tag line for this blog...Now, we dance!

[youtube]EtOoQFa5ug8[/youtube]

It was a lackluster field. Conservatives weren't as jazzed about the current crop of Republican nominees as they wanted to be. Then, on the horizon, came a chiseled jaw and the booming voice of a down-home good ol' boy who could take the real GOP message to Washington. (Cue Sound FX - Law and Order sting) Fred Thompson! Good ol' Fred will ride in and save the day!

Soooo...months later, how's that working out?

With lackluster fundraising numbers, candidates and newspapers targeting him at every chance, and a reputation (well earned or not, I can't say) of being lazy, it's hard to see exactly what staying out of the race will do for Thompson, other than continue to let him get his house in order and hire more staff (if they don't quit too soon).

And lackluster doesn't even begin to cover it, particularly considering the fervor with which vocal supporters said ol' Fred was going to turn this race on it's head. From Hot Air:

They'd hoped for $5 million in June. They'll end up with $3 million for June and July, due in part to voters' passions cooling as Fred drags his feet on getting in...The formal announcement is set tentatively for September 4th in Nashville but can they really wait that long if donations are already down?

Now, before we get into the procrastination issue, I can't help but comment on Allahpundit's willful obtuseness on the subject of ol' Fred's trophy wife midwestern-sensible bride Jeri a little further down that post. Now, I have nothing agianst her getting involved in ol' Fred's campaign. She can be as hands-on as she likes, and more power to her. But this:

I’m not sure how that shakes out vis-a-vis her bogus image as a trophy wife. If they don’t want people knowing how big a role she plays then the trophy wife nonsense is a welcome smokescreen. But … why wouldn’t they want people to know? Does it hurt his image as large and in charge if it looks like his wife is stage-managing him?

Hmmm....a strong-willed woman taking an active role in her husband's decision-making; why wouldn't they want anyone to know? Why, no conservative would be so crass as to hold that against someone, would they?

Surely not.

But back to ol' Fred's waiting game. Marc Anbinder points out some of the pitfalls of procrastination:

He is on the verge of failing to meet the prodigious (and unfair) expectations placed upon him. Announcing in prime time (i.e. after Labor Day) means he will get a lot of attention, so everything will be magnified -- the good and the bad. Thompson folks hate the Wesley Clark comparisons, but if we were Thompson, we'd make a call to Clark and just, well, chat.

The waiting is the hardest part, and it doesn't do anything to dispell the word on ol' Fred, which is that he lacks a certain fire in the belly. It is this lack of the Belly Fire that may be contagious to other aspects of his campaign - fundraising, inspiring supporters and hanging on to loyal staffers - that may be his biggest problem:

You know, Fred, George warned you: Prezidentin' is "hard work." If you're not willing to put in the effort, don't be surprised if the dollars don't flow in.

C'mon Fred. Stoke that belly fire, ya big tease.

And now for something completely different.....a cartoon.

I've been looking at them all day, and I can tell you: They're real, and they're spectacular!

Of course I'm referring to blog posts on the "controversy" over Hillary Clinton's cleavage.

What did you think I was talking about?

On this weekend's Meet the Press, the WSJ's John Harwood says Hillary did it just to get him all flummoxed and flustered:

When you look at the calculation that goes into everything that Hillary Clinton does, for her to argue that she was not aware of what she was communicating by her dress is like Barry Bonds saying he thought he was rubbing down with flaxseed oil.

The poor sap could hardly sleep at night after seeing all that skin. Most blogs, however, are taking this latest triviality - and Harwood's comments - as nails on a chalkboard. As usual, What Digby Said:

Does he seriously think that Hillary Clinton dressed herself that morning and looked in the mirror and said, "I'm gonna show off my fabulous ta-tas today?"...Or maybe he thinks she held a focus group on how much boobage she should show or had a secret poll done on the effect of cleavage on braindead members of the political press corps.

John Harwood evidently got a little stirring down there that reminded him of his long lost virility so he assumed Hillary must have been wantin' him bad. Get thee to a hooker, Harwood and leave the presidential candidates alone. They don't want you. Really.

All good possibilities, but blogger Jon Swift knows exactly what Hillary was communicating. It was a message to teh terrorists!

As if our enemies were not already emboldened enough by Hillary's talk of precipitate withdrawal, she went to the floor of Congress in a low-cut dress that was sure to have them exacerbating sectarian trends...Hillary's cleavage may already have provoked the terrorists to attack.

Now, mentioning Fred Thompson's wife is just beyond the pale for conservatives and the Very Wise Men and Women of our Illustrious Media. But Hillary's half-inch scoop? Time to open the floodgates on the original DS - Clinton Derangement Syndrome:

Why did she unbutton for the cameras? That is a more interesting question. My guess is she has been stung by the recent reports that she is intentionally acting like a man. Polls must show that this perception must be a dangerous vulnerability for Hillary Clinton, since old Bill swooped in overnight to defend her womanly honor.

And yes, it is an intentional display of cleavage. Everything Hillary Clinton does is calculated and managed.

And of course, no discussion of candidate cleavage could be complete without the biggest boob blogger out there, Ann Althouse:

Are you going to say that we ought to be giving attention to the content of that speech and not to the presentation of the woman who would be President?

Ummmm.....yes. But that's just for sane people, Ann.

And it's because of such knuckle-dragging and pearl-clutching that Taylor Marsh points out that, to some, women really haven't come a long way, baby:

Some think women should never dress provocatively or wear a low cut top. How are we to be taken seriously if we dress sexy? Seriously, what century is this anyway? In the 21st century, women should be able to wear anything we want while talking substance, especially when we're right.

But that's what gets some men afraid of the cleavage. If they see any, they can't think about substance. But then, it's not like many of them, especially in the media, were capable of that anyway:

Let’s also not lose sight of the big picture here. The premier Sunday political news program in the country hosted a detailed discussion with high-profile political reporters from prestigious news outlets about a presidential candidate’s chest. They did so shamelessly, as if it were normal and expected.

Same as it ever was...same as it ever was....

So the Washington Post is shocked, SHOCKED to learn that, if you actually go back and look at Alberto Gonzales' career (jour...na...lism?), he has something of a credibility problem. Now, far be it from me to condemn the speed with which it took anyone at the WaPo to put two and two together, but...it's not like the signs weren't there all along:

Why is it even news that Alberto Gonzales is a liar? Why, many of the stories I just linked to are from your own Very Serious Publication, written by Very Serious People! Don't you read your own paper?

How is it that I - just another dirty hippie with a blog - knew all along that Gonzales, a longtime fixer for this president, was selected as Attorney General for that very quality?

His lying is a feature, not a bug.

Now do you understand?

Maybe. But I wouldn't hold my breath. If it's taken congress this long to put the pieces together, god knows how long it will take the Post's editors to admit what is plain for everyone else to see:

It was clear during his confirmation hearing that Gonzales was incapable of giving a straight answer, yet the Senate confirmed him anyway. As with Roberts and Alito, the danger signs were obvious to anyone whose vision wasn't clouded by political calculation. Now the Senate must deal with a monster of its own making.

Just a reminder, it was Sen. Arlen Specter who insisted that Gonzales not be sworn in for his 2006 testimony on the domestic spying program, because just his word was good enough. Smart move, Arlen. Now they're finally catching on to Gonzales' history of shielding uncomfortable, if not incriminating facts about the administration to lawmakers.

But maybe I'm being too hard on 'Berto. Maybe his low-key, behind-the-scenes history of being Bush's fixer left him simply unprepared for primetime?

Is Alberto Gonzales a liar? a slippery parser of language? an amnesiac (as yet undiagnosed)? Or is he just an idiot?

...

Defenders of Gonzales certainly have ground to stand on. Gonzales does (claim to) forget a lot (points for the "amnesiac" theory). And every answer he gives is tangled in lawyerly knots (points for the "slippery parser"). And sometimes in the midst of a hearing, he just seems befuddled (points for the "idiot" theory).

What about "All of the above"?

Of course, Gonzo's just following rule #1 for any street gang:

Alberto Gonzales has replaced the rapper Cam'ron as the national poster boy for the "no snitching" code; the fact that he's also America's top law enforcement officer makes the irony that much more delicious, and more disgraceful.

But if you've paying any attention, it's not any more surprising.

I'm a parent, so no one needs to educate me about the first concern, above all else, to protect our children. But when some confuse safety with irrational fear, the same children they're trying to protect they end up hurting. I never thought in today’s day and age people really think being HIV makes you a walking virus, but obviously I’m wrong. Unfortunately, this isn't some theoretical debate about science and tolerance - it's about a 10 year old boy who just wanted to play basketball.

By playing the fear card, the camp argues it's better to be safe then sorry - they're wrong. Kids need to know not to be afraid of their own shadow and not to be afraid of people that are different than them. Living in fear, and preaching ignorance shouldn't be on any camp's curriculum.

Rudy's got "scheduling conflicts". Romney thinks it's undignified for a presidential candidate to take a question from a snowman. In fact, only John McCain and Ron Paul - perhaps not coincidentally the two candidates most despised by the conservative base - have agreed to take part in September's Republican YouTube debate. Andrew Sullivan calls this something less than courage:

For my part, the current old white men running for the GOP already seem from some other planet. Ducking YouTube after the Dems did so well will look like a party uncomfortable with the culture and uncomfortable with democracy. But then, we kind of knew that already, I guess, didn't we?

Recall, if you will, President Bush's Social Security townhall meetings, ostensibly with the "public", but were in fact staged events held in front of certified administration supporters who had signed loyalty oaths. People hand-picked to tell the President how great they thought his plan was. So it shouldn't come as a surprise that the GOP doesn't want to take part in a debate where they'll face questions from regular people. That's how they roll:

This reluctance to face questions from the people via the tubes tells you something about the Republicans. Whereas the Democrats not only took on the challenge, they seemed to enjoy themselves, even if the audience found that the questions were more pointed than the answers. But I imagine that the GOP candidates are afraid of having to field questions such as the ones the Democrats got about Iraq and gay marriage, and I'm sure there will be at least one questioner who will want to know why anyone should trust the Republicans after eight years of the Bush administration and twelve years of them in charge of Congress. And since the Republicans have a hard time working in an environment that isn't hermetically sealed with only their worshippers inside the biosphere, they can't allow themselves to be exposed to the real views of the American electorate.

Not to mention that the GOP, already not exactly popular with the youth vote, isn't making any efforts to remedy that situation:

YouTube is generational and some younger voters will interpret this as meaning the Republican candidates were just too old fashioned and old fogeyish to participate in (or "get") the new media.

But those are just the views from the left and center. Why does the right, as represented here by uber-conservative Hugh Hewitt, think their candidates should duck the debate? I'll give you three guesses, and the first two don't count:

The YouTube debate was a silly, and at times absurd exercise in giving air time to many idiots separated by an occasional responsible speaker, and the question selection by CNN demonstrated a huge left-wing bias which will inevitably appear in any subsequent YouTube debate organized by the MSM which is overwhelmingly staffed by the left.

So, we find the knee-jerk conservative reaction is that YouTubers are idiots. I'm going to go out on a limb and say the "occasional responsible speaker" Hewitt is referring to is the guy who stroked his gun and called it "baby".

Oh, and of course "TEH LIBERAL BIAS!!!11!!!ONE!" From...um...regular people. And conservatives are free to submit their own questions. Heck, they're free to load the questions with as many GOP-friendly softballs as they like.

Actually, I think some of them may be avoiding this debate format for that very reason. Not they're necessarily afraid of questions from a liberal audience, but that questions submitted by the fans of Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh would bring the naked un-hingedness of the far right to primetime. They may pander to the wingnut base at their own functions, but they don't like the rest of the country to know about it.

But even that's not what truly makes this a dish to savor. You may remember a certain howling outrage from the right when Democratic candidates refused to take part in a debate hosted by FOX. "How can they stand up to al Qaeda when they can't take a tough question from FOX?" Well...pot, meet kettle:

To paraphrase our conservative friends, if they can't face Americans, how will they ever face the terrorists...?

Oh double Heh Indeedy.

No...not like that.

Yeah....like that.

Like a new Capitol Hill game show, the Senate Judiciary Committee has invited Karl Rove to come on down! He's the next contestant on the Subpoena is Right! This made a lot of bloggers on the left very happy...to a point. That is, to the point that no one actually thinks Karl Rove is going to honor some measly Congressional subpoena:

I find it really hard to get excited over SJC issuing Rove a subpoena today...Until we get the Sergeant at Arms to arrest Harriet and hold her in contempt...it doesn't make sense to subpoena Rove because we don't have the tactically proven tools to enforce such a subpoena.

Rove is, and always has been, a slippery fish. Some are trying to not get too hopeful, lest Karl cut another deal and let someone else take the heat. But now that Democrats are starting to show some spark and take the administration's stonewalling head on, others are saying now is the time to increase the voltage:

Okay, when Rove doesn't respond to the subpoena -- and he won't, play hard ball: cut his salary from the budget, take away his security clearance, make him pay. The guiding principle for Senate Democrats should be: what would Rove do?

Why, Rove would play hardball, of course. Attack your opponent directly, and on his strengths. But some rightwing blogs are apparently unfamiliar with the concept, at least when they're on the receiving end. Don Surber gets himself het up to a mighty whinge - the following are just highlights, but the whole thing is ripe for a fisking:

Enough. Rove has already been forced to testify for hours on end without a lawyer and without notes before a federal grand jury in a pathetic and outrageous attempt to trip Rove up.

President Bush must intervene and order Rove not to testify...

The hundreds of investigations are harassment aimed at preventing a duly elected president from performing his constitutional duties. It is scorching the Earth...

Bush should go directly to the people, explain how he and his staff have cooperated with an unprecedented number of investigations...

No more Mr. Nice Guy...

Congress was created to legislate, not investigate...

I have to stop there. The more I read Don, the more I think of a large Rhode Island Red, strutting around a courtroom in a seersucker suit.

Anyway...Checks and balances. A completely foreign concept to some, a founding principle of our constitution to others. But as we've seen recently, the White House seems more interested in defending it's own backside than constitutional principles. Fortunately, Congress has a Plan B ready and waiting:

Not long ago, Congress issued subpoenas to Harriet Miers and Josh Bolton regarding the same issue, the politically motivated firings of US Attorneys. But after hardcore stonewalling from the White House, Congress finally got fed up and issued a citation of contempt for the former Bush aides. Their fate, it would seem, would be a near perfect prognostication of what Rove and Jennings have in store.

Imagine, Karl Rove held in contempt...

Moreso than usual, I mean.

A resounding call is being made for a major overhaul in how wounded soldiers, and veterans, are cared for across the country. It came in a report from a high-level panel, appointed by President Bush. The Senate has already taken steps to improve veteran care, by voting to increase disability pay and providing more funding for diagnosing brain injuries and post-traumatic stress disorder. Now the hard part. Everybody agrees the reforms are needed and long overdue - and that’s the problem.

As the report states, making the improvements requires " a sense of urgency and strong leadership." Raise your hand if you trust this administration, given their track record with veteran care....?

I thought so.

Only when shamed have Bush and friends acknowledged the plight of vets. But acknowledgement isn’t what s needed, action is. To get the Pentagon and the V.A. to change and work together - that will require the president. So blue ribbon committees are well intentioned, even noble, but if that’s all they are, well sadly the vets will be disappointed yet tellingly, not surprised.

Today's blogs are brought to you by the letters A & G, for "Attorney General" and "Alberto Gonzalez," and the letter P, for "Perjury."

With the revelation of a memo from national intelligence director John Negroponte's office that contradicts Gonzales' testimony, the plot, as they say, thickens. The Carpetbagger Report has been following the twists and turns - not easy considering 'Berto's shuck-and-jive routine these last few months:

The irony is, Gonzales was apparently lying to cover up earlier lying. Last year, Gonzales told the Senate Judiciary Committee there was no disagreement about the program. Then James Comey said there was a lot of disagreement about the program. A month ago, Gonzales said he and Comey were referring to the same program. Tuesday, Gonzales said he and Comey were referring to different programs. What a tangled web he weaves....

But Gonzales, as should come as no surprise, is sticking by his testimony. The only reason for this that anyone can figure is that Gonzales is taking parsing language and semantics to dizzying new heights - or lows, as the case may be:

I suspect, some clever White House official seized upon a semantic distinction between "the program the president confirmed" and its predecessor. Only the program as currently constituted would be called the Terrorist Surveillance Program. Any features that had been dropped in 2004 would be considered "other intelligence activities."

Relying on this unstated and hyper-legalistic distinction, Gonzales then testified that there had been no internal dissent over "the program that the president has confirmed."

I hate to quibble over details, but.....IT'S STILL THE SAME #$@!^&%*! PROGRAM!!! It's like saying a person who shaves their head is a completely different, separate human being than when they had hair. Not exactly a stirring argument. Legal experts see getting a perjury charge to stick as akin to shooting fish in a barrel (or shooting quail with Dick Cheney, if you prefer). And so, "Bring on the Special Prosecutor!" say Senate Democrats. The blog Corrente says great idea, but we just don't have the time:

If we were playing baseball, this would be a great play. But we’re playing football, and smashmouth football at that. Why? Because football, unlike baseball, is played to the clock. And right now, the Republicans are running out the clock. And if a Special Prosecutor can get the job done before election 2008, why the hell can’t we just impeach, since there’s time to do that too?

Yesterday I suggested someone do something - impeachment, contempt citation, perjury charges, anything. But I was reminded today that in the end, this administration's officials have the best fringe benefits of any job, ever. And because of this, Ana Marie Cox at Swampland doesn't think even a special prosecutor is going to help:

Sure, appoint a special prosecutor! That'll show Bush! Just like the last time, when we threw Scooter Libby in jail... Oh, right. Hm. Maybe now "special prosecutor" is just a ceremonial title, designed to make people feel good about the illusion of justice. Like, you know, "Attorney General."

The White House better start ordering "Get Out of Jail Free" cards in bulk.

A black eye. There's no other way to put it. NY Gov. Eliot Spitzer's got a heck of a shiner, and the kicker is it was self-inflicted. Accusations that his administration is stonewalling investigations into a dirty-tricks campaign against State Senate majority leader Joe Bruno have prompted more accusations that the governor has a double standard:

During his tenure as Attorney General, Spitzer was known for subpoenaing and investigating everyone and everything on the most tenuous grounds. here we have clear wrong-doing by the Spitzer administration, and the governor is unwilling to submit to the same sort of probing to which he subjected others. Maybe this matter needs to be turned into an impeachment proceeding.

How easily the "I" word is thrown around by the right when it's not about one of their own. Practically salivating over the early breakdown of the Steamroller, conservative blogs are already envisioning life without Eliot:

New York was a Democratic state before Eliot Spitzer came along and it will be a Democratic state after he leaves. The question is how much pain State Dems will be willing to endure aiding Spitzer in his improbable cover-up before they pull the plug and move on.

While reports of Spitzer's demise may be a bit premature at this point, support from the people who swept him into office last fall is in critical condition. The progressive netroots blog The Albany Project doesn't mince words:

It would be an understatement to say that I'm disappointed.

Not liking this. Not liking this at all.

Spitzer supporters are trying to put as happy a face on this as they can, noting that, so far, no one has been accused of doing anything illegal. But it doesn't look like things will be the same for the governor anymore:

Sometimes the righteous zeal of a reformer/crusader crosses a line. Eliot Spitzer and gang crossed that line. ... I'm still impressed with what he's accomplished in six months. But this incident will -- and should -- slow him down.

While it remains to be seen if Spitzer was aware of what his underlings were doing regarding Joe Bruno, it doesn't matter. When you campaign as a reformer and get elected - particularly in an election year where Republican ethics troubles were a major theme - it's not enough that you didn't know of wrongdoing in your administration. You have to make it crystal clear that this kind of behavior is simply unacceptable. Not just because it hurts your own image, smacks of hypocrisy and gives ammunition to your opponents, but it makes it harder to get anything done:

Whatever you think about Spitzer, his main ambition was to scrape away at the calcification that makes "the most dysfunctional legislature in the nation" an easy-to-use cliché for Albany. Now that Bruno can claim victimhood, you can expect more of the same out of Albany at least until 2008, when the Democrats attempt to recapture the state Senate.

A task that is now much more daunting. And with the Guv brought back to earth from once lofty heights, we're back to the going-nowhere-fast dynamic of "three men in a room."

Oh joy.

I know it’s hard to believe, but sometimes government programs actually work. S-CHIP is one of those rarities. Proven to cut the ranks of the uninsured - it has become a critical safety net for children who have nowhere else to go for health care. Maybe because it makes sense, or maybe because it only helps kids who can't vote - this White House, for reasons known only to them, wants to shortchange a lifeline set to expire this September.

Bi-partisanship actually exists in the Senate and one can hope cooler heads will bring the powers that be together again in the House - but it's hard to think common sense and compassion will take root in this White House.

I get that good and decent people can disagree and even fight over issues where debate has a place. But who in god's name thinks that millions of children in America don't deserve health care and that the United States of America can't afford to cover them. If caring for kids is now an optional proposition, we're in worst trouble than I even imagined.

With Alberto Gonzales' (pardon the phrase) tortured testimony, the senate investigations into the prosecutor purge and domestic spying scandals have gone from ones of public outrage and derision into the realm of black comedy. Even some conservatives can't believe their eyes:

Doesn't This Man Need To Spend More Time With His Family?

Gonzales once again spent the hearing zig-zagging and backtracking, stoking calls this time for a special prosecutor from one of the Republicans on the committee. He managed to reverse himself twice on the late-night meeting with John Ashcroft in one hearing...As Gonzales continues to flounder in a sea of his own contradictions, one has to wonder why the White House continues to allow this bleeding to continue.

Why? I'll tell you why, because Republican calls for a special prosecutor notwithstanding, the GOP has stood by their man Bush, and he's stood by his man 'Berto:

Obviously the Democrats have to do something. I'd like it if some Republicans thought that having their congressional powers mocked and laughed at was an area of concern, too, but those people who spent their time holding their breaths waiting for Republicans to do the right thing have long since died of asphyxiation.

Gonzales' latest performance has been compared to the works of Marx. Groucho and Chico, not Karl. Abbott and Costello's "Who's On First?" also comes to mind.

GONZALES: I clarified my statement two days later with the reporter.

SCHUMER: What did you say to the reporter?

GONZALES: I did not speak directly to the reporter.

SCHUMER: Oh, wait a second — you did not.

(LAUGHTER)

OK. What did your spokesperson say to the reporter?

GONZALES: I don’t know. But I told the spokesperson to go back and clarify my statement…

But not everyone is laughing. Especially legal blogger Adam Cohen at the Washington Post's Bench Conference blog:

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales deserves to be fired for his testimony Tuesday alone; for morphing into Jon Lovitz's famous "pathological liar" character (or maybe just one of the Marx Brothers) as he tried to dodge and duck responsibility before the Senate Judiciary Committee not just for his shameful leadership at Justice but also his shameless role in visiting an ailing John Ashcroft in the hospital to try to strong-arm him into renewing the warrantless surviellance program. Can anyone out there remember a worse, less-inspiring, less confidence-inducing performance on Capitol Hill? I cannot.

No reasonable person watching Gonzales' tragically comedic performance Tuesday's on Capitol Hill-- especially his miserable exchange with Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) in late morning-- can any longer defend his appalling lack of competence, courage and credibility...

I am running out of words to describe how inept this public servant is and how awful is the message our government sends to the nation and to the world by allowing him to continue to represent us.

At one point, Gonzalez even refused to answer questions from Sen. Chuck Schumer. As the Talking Points Memo points out - and the US Attorney General should bloody well know - you can't do that:

Testifying before Congress is like being called to testify in court. You have to answer every question. Every question. You can fudge and say you don't remember something and see how far you get. Or you can invoke various privileges. And it's up to the courts to decide if the invocations are valid. But it's simply not permitted to refuse to answer a question. It is quite literally contempt of Congress.

Cite him for contempt (it seems to be all the rage today), impeach him, convince him to resign and spend more time with Andy Card's family, or just take him for a drive out into the woods, open the door, throw a tennis ball out and hit the gas before he realizes what's happened, but someone ought to do something.

Our Attorney General is a joke.

It wasn't the most notable moment of the YouTube debate, but Hillary Clinton's distinction between herself and rival Barack Obama on the issue of dealing with unfriendly nations has provided the first real friction between the two. The Carpetbagger Report gives that round to Hillary, but with an asterisk:

Clinton's answer...was more complete and demonstrated a more detailed understanding of international diplomacy. Obama seemed to be speaking to the broader notion of the U.S. dealing directly with rivals and enemies, but Clinton recognized some of the dangers involved with these kinds of diplomatic overtures…Clinton's campaign seems anxious to take advantage of what they perceive as a gaffe, but this is trickier that it sounds.

Indeed. Few would argue (although some contrarians will anyway) that Clinton's response wasn't smart, measured, even presidential. Perhaps Obama sensed that his response wasn't quite as good, because he came out swinging first:

While Hillary did draw the contrast between them first last night, it should be noted that the Obama camp also escalated matters early today with a memo hitting Hillary for having "reversed" herself since April. This hit, which came before Hillary's "naive" comment, is a bit of a Drudgy attack...So Obama's no wallflower here. Nor should he be; these guys should be arguing with each other.

No one's arguing that they shouldn't be arguing. What seems to be the issue is how they're arguing, specifically Hillary's "irresponsible and naive" riposte. Remember, this is still a fight for the Democratic primary, so it's not exactly a positive when you get Fox's Brit Hume and the rightwing bloggers at National Review Online's The Corner singing your praises. Corner editor Kathryn Jean-Lopez takes time off from swooning over Mitt Romney to posit an alternative universe scenario:

Hillary is the nominee. She won't talk to Ahmadinejad and Assad? That puts her way Right of our Speaker of the House. If I had to vote for a Democrat, I know who it would be.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what makes this noteworthy. Not the specifics of Clinton's answer, or Obama's, but how Clinton framed the issue. Just like a Republican would:

I don't advocate meeting controversial and even adversarial foreign leaders for the hell of it or if nothing productive can be announced afterwards...

Hillary Clinton thinks she is clever. She actually said that she wouldn't meet with these leaders until after 'lower-level diplomatic contacts [were] conducted'. What? Does she think Obama would just fly to Havana without any prep-work from the State Department? I am sick of this idiotic level of debate.

Conservatives respond to this kind of empty rhetoric. Progressives should be repulsed by it.

A Democratic candidate using rightwing talking points is frowned upon by the base, to say the least, just on basic principle. But also because, well, why would you want to sound like people who have been consistently wrong on everything foreign policy-related for the last 6 years?

I'm not saying Obama's judgment about his judgment is necessarily correct, just that the very serious foreign policy people in Washington keep, you know, getting it wrong. The foreign policy establishment has its own arbitrary parameters of debate which it imposes on political candidates, a sort of legacy of decades of debates piled on other debates, which often have little relationship to reality. It tries to impose those rules onto candidates, declaring this or that a "foreign policy gaffe," even though it's often only a gaffe to the very serious people who brought us George Bush's excellent Iraqi adventure.

It's hard to imagine that Clinton is ready to waltz in and repeat the same mistakes the current administration has made habits out of. Perhaps she just remembered that nice guys finish last, hit Obama where he lives, and will try and win back the base later. She's the comfortable leader in this race right now. She may want to finish off the competition as she casts an eye towards the general election.

I've never been one to hero worship our pro athletes, but as a parent - the men-behaving-badly routine is more than disconcerting. Running dog fighting rings, trading gunfire and becoming walking pharmaceutical lab rats; the poster boys for their respective sports are now gracing magazine covers as well as mug shots.

Wer'e not talking fringe players here: Vick, Bonds and friends are big deals in big trouble. And now for good measure we add a crooked NBA ref to the mix that raises legitimate questions about what’s real and what’s fixed.

The pro scene has gotten coarser along with society, and along with their sense of entitlement and cameras trained on them 24 hours a day - the modern day athlete, I believe is turning off the regular fan. I admit, however, we are a fickle bunch. Steroids are upsetting, but let’s be honest, if Bonds were a Yankee or Met, would we cheer? I am curious where your line is for moral outrage or convenient amnesia? Let’s be honest, how many of us bought Mike Tyson fights even though we knew what kind of person he really was?

All that being said, I think we’re at a point in time where many of us have had it, where we don't want to think twice about letting our kid buy that jersey or answer more questions about the latest arrest. It’s becoming too hard to be a fan.

There were blunt, sometimes uncomfortable questions. There were dramatic and poignant moments. There were even talking snowmen. But revealing, unscripted answers at the CNN / YouTube debate? Not really. The bells and whistles may have been new, but this was just a really large town hall e-meeting. The Moderate Voice notes there is nothing new under the sun:

In this debate the novelty of You Tube questions could not help but overshadow and upstate the content of the Democrats’ presentation. The word “presentation” is more accurate than “debate” these days, because much of what Republicans and Democrats tout as “debate” really consists of talking points that candidates do cartwheels to recite, regardless of the actual question. But that is NOT new: talking points in debates go back some 40 years.

Of coiurse this is nothing new. The modern politician is bred to avoid going off-script at all costs, an ingrained survival instinct - Joe Biden being the exception that proves the rule. And for all the difference in format and tone of this debate compared to others, some bloggers who held high expectations found themselves let down:

I am sorely disappointed. CNN selected too many obvious, dutiful, silly questions. Anderson Cooper didn’t pace the debate; he tried to trip the runners. The videos were too tiny to be given justice. The candidates’ videos were just commercials. There were far too few issues. There were too many candidates. The candidates gave us the same answers they always give. I have no doubt — no doubt — that we, the people, would have done a better job picking the questions than CNN did.

I have no doubt that we would have heard far more substance without CNN and TV cameras in this. This should have been a debate held online: candidates answering questions directly without the need for CNN, Anderson Cooper, or their questions. We end with the usual horserace blather of the TV commentators.

A terribly wasted opportunity, this was.

Those who were expecting the YouTube debates to change the face of political campaigning the way the Nixon-Kennedy televised debates did may be disappointed, but others with a sense of humor - and an understanding for the need for wider participation in the political process - were pleasantly surprised, like Markos Moulitsas, founder of Daily Kos:

I actually thought the debate was pretty cool. Drudge had a derisive headline earlier today that said something like, "Is this a way to choose a president?" For my part, I give an emphatic "yes"! Anything that makes politics fun is a good thing. And, for example, the Gore question from Tennessee and the Snowman and his snowchild were fun. This was a positive, and I hope to see more of it become culturally acceptable in the presidential process.

In the end, the insight, extroversion and silliness were all uniquely American. And anyways, it can hardly be worse than what we've been getting from Wolf Blitzer and Chris Matthews:

I hope there are more experimental formats in debates. Regardless, news organizations should let ordinary Americans write the questions more often. If there is anything more boring than watching eight candidates randomly provide thirty-second non-answers to an utterly unfocused set of vague, off the shelf questions, it is watching a news anchor ask those questions.

It's nothing you'd want to make a regular diet of, but adding a little spice to your political debate diet can make it easier to swallow.

A "surge" is, by it's very definition, temporary in nature. The White House has insisted time and time again that this is the case in Iraq. Now, as with such words and phrases as "torture" and "rule of law", the administration has a rather, shall we say, unique definition of "temporary". But never fear!, says Strata-Sphere, that elusive pony called "sccuess in Iraq" is right around the corner:

After 6 long years since 9-11 and 4 years of effort in Iraq we are about ready to see the results we have been too doubtful to even hope for. The military has plans to stay in Iraq with force levels near what we see today for another two years. It may not take that long, but I am sure that is the outside timeframe.

He's sure, despite the fact that the White House has repeatedly, since the War's start, moved the goalposts back again and again and again. But this time is different. This time, they have a plan. Matthew Yglesias reminds us they had a plan before, too:

I wonder if the 2004-vintage plan called for the country to be mired in chaos by the summer of 2007? I'm guessing it didn't...It seems to me that the tricky part is going to be less the planning to restore security than the actual restoring of the security.

But you see, that's the clever bit, cunning as a weasel. Move the goalposts again and run the clock out, and Iraq becomes...someone else's problem. Someone Taylor Marsh thinks will likely have a (D) next to their name:

Unless the Democrats get enough Republicans to join them in September, the next president will have on her or his shoulder the burden of pulling out of Iraq. That's key...Republicans covering for Bush have allowed the clock to continue to tick down. Handing off Iraq to a Democratic president lays it in her or his lap. It's amazing how quickly politicians change their mind about chaos when it officially becomes their mess.

On a side note, polls are interesting things. A growing majority of Americans are in favor of getting out of Iraq. A majority are unhappy with the Democrat-controlled Congress, yet they trust that Congress to handle the war more than Bush. So, unless Congress manages to shock everyone and does what the majority actually wants them to, we'll be treated to this rerun of the original non-plan, a plan that consists of throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks:

The plan envisions two phases. The “near-term” goal is to achieve “localized security” in Baghdad and other areas no later than June 2008. It envisions encouraging political accommodations at the local level, including with former insurgents, while pressing Iraq’s leaders to make headway on their program of national reconciliation.

The “intermediate” goal is to stitch together such local arrangements to establish a broader sense of security on a nationwide basis no later than June 2009.

Uhh, good luck "stitching together" local truces between Sunni guerrillas in one region and Shiite militias in another, when each side sees the other as a mortal threat and you've been arming both.

We learn at the end that the real "strategy" -- after four years and thousands of deaths -- is trial-and-error and pray something works:

“We are going to try a dozen different things,” said one senior officer. “Maybe one of them will flatline. One of them will do this much. One of them will do this much more. After a while, we believe there is chance you will head into success. I am not saying that we are absolutely headed for success.”

Ah, why didn't you say so before? As long as there's a "chance" that we might "head into success," I'm sure that's worth sending another thousand or so U.S. soldiers to their deaths. After all, that's the fuel this perpetual-motion machine runs on.

A costly strategy based on wishful thinking.

Regular viewers know it's an open secret - if not inside joke - that I abhor any talk of impeachment, or the "I" word. After the giant waste of time and taxpayer dollars on the fishing expedition against Bill Clinton, I had more than a lifetime's worth of political grandstanding. So while it's easy to dismiss Feingold’s floor show it's also fair to say that sex with an intern isn't the same as the disaster of Iraq and the trampling of our constitution.

Politically, maybe it's more distraction than it's worth, but on principle how can any objective watcher of this White House call it undeserved? This war and this administration’s actions haven't been honest mistakes, they've been choices - all manipulative and all without oversight.

If I had a vote - I’d censure George W. Bush.

It's like voting for Mom, apple pie and sleeping in late on the weekends: Healthcare for children! The State Children’s Health Insurance Program, whose continuation and expansion enjoys true bipartisan support in the House and Senate, is a gimme for any endangered encumbant. No one in their right mind could say "no" to getting children with no healthcare access to the basic care they need. No one with half a conscience would play politics with the well being of the most defenseless among us. Right?

Not quite. President Bush could and would, but he, of course, is not up for re-election. Which (more easily than usual) lets him get away with a forehead-slapper like this:

I mean, people have access to health care in America," he said. "After all, you just go to an emergency room."

Showing a galling callousness and a basic misunderstanding of how the health care system works, Bush has vowed to break out his infrequently used veto pen if anyone dares try to get the government to help insure poor children and their families. But for the sake of the private insurance sector missing out on larger profits and his own pet insurance tax proposals, Bush is willing to let millions of children continue to go without healthcare

Is it because he doesn’t think the program works? No, Bush acknowledges that S-CHIP works well. Is it because it’s fiscally irresponsible? No, it’s fairly inexpensive.

Bush’s opposition is entirely, by his own admission, ideological. Here’s what he told a friendly audience in Cleveland last week:

“[S-CHIP is] now aiming at encouraging more people to get on government health care. That’s what that is. It’s a way to encourage people to transfer from the private sector to government health care plans...I strongly object to the government providing incentives for people to leave private medicine, private health care to the public sector. [...]

“I mean, think of it this way: They’re going to increase the number of folks eligible through S-CHIP; some want to lower the age for Medicare. And then all of a sudden, you begin to see a — I wouldn’t call it a plot, just a strategy — (laughter) — to get more people to be a part of a federalization of health care.”

It doesn’t matter if it works, or if it’s affordable, or whether it’ll help children receive quality care — what matters is Bush’s ideology tells him it’s offensive. If that means less insurance for kids, so be it.

...

As the Bush gang sees it, we’ve socialized medicine for the elderly (Medicare), we’ve socialized medicine for the poor (Medicaid), and we’ve socialized medicine for veterans (the VA system). But 4 million kids? Out of the 9 million who currently lack coverage? That’s just too much. Pretty soon, the rest of the country might see these Americans receiving quality healthcare in a publicly-financed system and start to think they deserve coverage, too.

And we can’t have that.

It's that whole "Socialism" bugaboo. The conservative paranoia that the government caring for it's more unfortunate citizens amounts to something close to a Castro-like communiist revolution. Or exactly like it. Thing is, equating universal healthcare with socialism just doesn't have the same juice it did back in the "Hillarycare" scare of the '90's.

In a way the President is right; covering children and the elderly IS a step down the road to a national health care plan. The difference is that most people see that as a good thing.
...

What's more, covering children is remarkably cost-effective and will actually save most Americans money in hidden costs like ER visits.

Even 51% of Republicans think universal healthcare should be the right of every American. Not to mention that conservative logic against funding SCHIP gets a little fuzzy for some right-wing "small government" blogs like Wizbang!

To massively increase the number of people eligible for SCHIP, the government will be hard pressed to find ways to fund it. Right now, cigarette taxes pay the bulk of the funding, but the high taxes on cigarettes are driving down cigarette sales, which is driving down the funding for SCHIP...Where will SCHIP get funding after that happens?

So......we pay for children's healthcare by taxing cigarettes, which are bad for you...People stop smoking...they need less healthcare...

I'm not sure I see the downside. But I'm sure there's somewhere (tax cuts for the rich) we could find more funding. And we should do this sooner, rather than later:

One way or the other, on September 30th, SCHIP will expire, and the millions of children and families currently relying on it will be without health coverage. The President certainly likes his showdowns. But my guess is a showdown with Congress over whether children should have health care isn't one he's going to win.

And as Digby, subbing in over at Salon.com's War Room, reminds usblogging at the War Room:
Bush proved with his unpopular prescription drug program that he's not against all government funded programs:

It wasn't too long ago that he was more than willing to dramatically expand government healthcare -- as long as the insurance companies got a nice healthy piece of the action and the pharmaceuticals companies got no price controls -- and, of course, the people who benefited were a huge voting bloc. Poor kids don't vote, so why bother?

And so the veto pen looms. But this is healthcare for kids. Mom and apple pie. Bush may feel he has nothing left to lose, so why not throw a sot to the insurance companies, sacrificing the well being of the many and the less fortunate for the profit margins of the few and the wealthy, but for pols who DO have to worry about job security, going against it is political suicide:

The election is well over a year away but you can already picture the devastating political ads---haunting images of sick children followed by pictures of smiling senators who stood with Bush and voted against the senate finance version of SCHIP...Could Bush face his first veto override?

The override equation is simple: ("Won't somebody please!) Think of the children, or look for a new job come next November.

Democrats go once more into the breach to try to get Bush to pass a bill redeploying troops from Iraq, or barring that, putting together a veto-proof majority. But until that happens, the questions are asked, "Should we leave?" and "Can we stay?" Unsurprisingly, Michelle Malkin gets yet more mileage out of "leaving will embolden the enemy":

223-201, the House…passed a surrender timetable that culminates in an April 1, 2008 withdrawal. How appropriate. It'll be vetoed, but don't think our enemies aren't hearing the defeatist message from the House loud and clear.

And never mind about actually passing a bill to withdraw or redeploy, the American Pundit's concern is that even trying makes him - and by extension all of America - look like less than manly men:

Don't worry, Madam Speaker. The terrorists are getting your message loud and clear - you're weak...Yes. 4 years is more than enough time to fight the biggest threat to our national security since the height of the Cold War. 4 years and that’s it. What? You want us to actually commit to something, and follow through? /defeatist wimpass Liberal.

The amount of effort it must take to drown out all outside information except that which feeds your basest, 4th grade playground instincts must be enormous, but I'll try to get through. Terrorists were spoiling to get the US into a fight on their turf and George Bush obliged them. The war has strengthened al Qaeda, not weakened them. Leaving doesn;t give them what they want, staying does. Not only that, but when the people getting killed in the crossfire finally get fed up and decide they've had enough, there's not a lot we can do:

When an occupying force is seen by a sufficient number of the people as an unwelcome occupier to be opposed, then there's no way that occupier can be responsible for creating and maintaining order.

And that situation is not likely to improve the longer we stay. Finally, while pulling troops out of Iraq will not make everything better, Iraq's persistent vegetative state is not going to change:

Those of us who think Iraq is a disaster - the majority of the American people, thank you - do not think everything is going to be okay after we leave. Quite the contrary. We're screwed, Iraq is screwed, and once we pull out all hell is likely going to break loose. But Iraq…is Terri Schiavo. All the king's horses and all the king's men aren't going to be able to put Humpty Dumpty back to together again. Schiavo's life was over. Iraq is a goner. Pulling the plug sucks, we get that. But sometimes pulling the plug is the only option left.

But this is all irrlelvant. As long as Bush is in office, no matter what congress does, no matter what the public wants, he won't budge. Because to do so would be an admission of his own failure.

To say it's not been a good week for John McCain would be a massive understatement. How bad was it?

Can John McCain get a break? Hot on the heels of the loss of his top campaign management, the resignation of key Iowa team members, and news that the campaign will actually report a debt in the next few days, we've got.... a gay prostitution scandal. What's next? Locusts in campaign HQ?

That would be the scandal of Florida Rep. Bob Allen, co-chairman of John McCain's Florida campaign, arrested for soliciting sex in a Florida men's room. And if I never blog about that, it'll be too soon. But this is about McCain. How did he fall so far in just a few years? Was it being despised by the conservative base? Yes. Was it Iraq? Also yes. In fact, you could trace all of McCain's recent unpopular positions to one single, very unpopular source:

For many, the past eight years have been a disheartening display of McCain's willingness to sacrifice his credentials in order to please the Republican elite. The edge that McCain once brought…has been dulled by a complacency in being a Bush sycophant, willing to suck down the fumes from a disastrous war, an exceedingly unpopular immigration policy, and economically hobbling tax cuts while Bush speeds away from Pennsylvania Avenue.

On Iraq, immigration, torture, tax cuts, McCain spent the last few years embracing a man who's own popularity is now less than 30%. Is it any surprise that rubbed off? It is this image, perhaps more than any other, that will accompany McCain's political eulogy. But despite the obituaries being written and the casket laid out, McCain's insisting he's not dead yet, and may be planning on one last all-or-nothing shot. From the Huffington Post:

According to private conversations with political operatives from both parties, John McCain has no choice but to adopt a high risk strategy to revive his presidential bid, a double Hail Mary: Throw one stink bomb at the White House and another at Republican National Committee headquarters. There is no guarantee the strategy would work - in fact the odds are long against it.

There's also no guarantee McCain will take the advice. The Caucus got a preview of an upcoming speech, and in what may be, in it's own way, his last Maverick act, McCain is sticking to his guns:

McCain plans to end the roughest week of his campaign by returning to New Hampshire, the state that handed him his major upset victory in 2000, and talking about the war in Iraq, an issue that has come to define his campaign. McCain…plans to cast the 2008 presidential election as a referendum on the war in Iraq - a risky stance, given polls that show the war is increasingly unpopular.

An unpopular war, an unpopular president, and an unpopular candidate who embraced them both.

As I was listening to Bush's speech today, I came across an article in the Associated Press. I made it easy, but see if you can spot the contradiction here:

U.S. intelligence analysts have concluded al-Qaida has rebuilt its operating capability to a level not seen since just before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

And from later in the same article:

The findings could bolster the president's hand at a moment when support on Capitol Hill for the war is eroding and the administration is struggling to defend its decision for a military buildup in Iraq.

Some people wonder why some progressives seem cynical, irritable, or even angry at the traditional media.

This is why.

Because no matter what, whenever something happens somewhere, someone will spin it as being good for Bush and the GOP:

This administration's entire premise is that it exists to reduce the risk of terrorism. That was what the GWOT was supposed to be about...So when 6 years later it turns out those policies have not actually achieved their aims, even leaving aside all of the additional dead people they've helped create, you'd think it would be fairly logical to see that as a bad thing.

But getting back to Bush's speech, he made it clear - at least to himself - that those who kill innocents in Iraq are the same ones that attacked us on Sept. 11. This is not only technically wrong, it demonstrates a lack of understanding over who our enemy is:

Worse, the president conflated every single radical element in the Middle East into one amorphous anti-American entity. It appears that he sees Shiite militias, Hezbollah, al Qaeda, Hamas and the Sunni insurgents as indistinguishable. He has even said baldly that the people bombing and murdering in Iraq are the same people who attacked us on 9/11. The Shiite militias? The Baathist dead-enders? Is he serious? He seems to be still operating under the premise that the fundamental dynamic is one between democracy and radicalism. At some very broad and general level, that's not wrong. But in terms of forming policy, it's close to useless.

(On a side note, it's nice to see Sullivan's rehabilitation back into the reality-based community is progressing. Still a ways to go, but we should be encouraging.)

As we were speaking of useless, that brings us back to the administration's efforts to decimate al Qaeda. Six summers after one report warned "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S" another says "Al-Qaida better positioned to strike the West". And in his speech today, Bush spun this as a good thing:

We’ve now spent somewhere around a trillion dollars on our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. That’s a one followed by twelve zeroes. It’s a room full of a million boxes, and when you open each box, inside there is a million dollars!

And yet, six years and a trillion dollars later, the President himself will admit that “They are still a threat. They are still dangerous.” Does he say this in his resignation speech, shamefully acknowledging his failure...?
No! He does it in irrational defense of his own policies, and in the same breath asserts the importance of success!

Makes you wonder if Bush has started writing his own stories for the Associated Press

Rudy Giuliani: Urban Legend

For six years, Rudy Giuliani has worn the cape and mantle of Hero of September 11th. He wore it everywhere, reminded everyone he was wearing it, until he became synonymous with 9/11 itself. But as often happens as we get older, we see our heroes for the fallible, perhaps less-than-well-intentioned humans they are. We may even find that, upon closer inspection, they weren't deserving of all the praise heaped upon them. It certainly seems that way between NY firefighters and Rudy Giuliani:

Giuliani has done everything in his power to brandish his reputation as "America's Mayor," and he's cashed in on the persona, politically and financially… Since rocketing to international prominence after 9/11, Giuliani has raked in more than $11 million through book and speaking fees related to the terror attacks. The firefighters say his portrait of leadership is ill founded.

Of course Rudy's not going to let anyone tug on Superman's cape, so his campaign fired back immediately, painting the IAFF as a bunch of Democrat-supporting liberal lefties who no one should listen to. But again, when you look closer, things are more complicated than that:

It's unusual for Rudy's campaign to respond to attacks in this vein; it means that the IAFF"s criticism is taken seriously (and personally). The IAFF is a labor union, and it leans D. But it's also among the more independent unions in the country, regularly hosting briefings with top Republican leaders and endorsing GOP candidates. Several Republicans attended its presidential forum earlier this year One of the two unions that produced today's video endorsed Pres. Bush in 2004.

Now, many are calling this the first Swift Boat attack of the 2008 campaign, the big difference being that NY firefighters have about 1000% more credibility than the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. And with this coming so early in the campaign, some are wondering whether this will actually hurt Rudy. Allahpundit at Hot Air doesn't think so:

There’s at least one self-professed conservative in the mix of interviewees here and per Karol’s very informal survey, the anti-Giuliani animus isn’t a fringe thing within the FDNY.

She predicts firefighter opposition will be a big problem for him. I predict it won’t simply because unpreparedness for 9/11 was institutional throughout the U.S. and people responded to his poise in the aftermath, which isn’t affected by anything here.

With all due respect, I have to disagree. I myself was thankful for Giuliani's poise in those days - especially when compared to the deer-in-the-headlights reaction of Bush. But over time, as more damning information came out about ALL of Rudy's actions - before, during and after 9/11 - it undermined any respect I had for his "poise". The Daily Intelligencer explains what I mean:

The campaign sent Lee Lelpi, a firefighter who lost a son when the Trade Center collapsed, and Richard Sheirer, former chief of the city's Office of Emergency Management, to defend their man at a hastily arranged late-afternoon press conference. Sheirer had perhaps the most interesting defense: “Nobody died during that recovery.” True. They just breathed things that will kill them later.

It's one thing to look like a hero when the cameras are rolling. It's another to act like one when they're not.

When Karl Rove says it's sunny, bring your umbrella. When he says everything's safe, check your wallet. And when he says that Iraq won't be all that important to the 2008 elections, well, take it with a huge grain of salt. About 28 lbs should do. Crooks and Liars took theirs:

Rove is trying to muddy the waters and soft peddle the public outrage over Iraq by saying he hopes the Iraq war won't be a big issue for the next election because he hopes the troops will be coming home. OK, and I have a bridge to sell you.

When Karl Rove starts sounding like a Democrat, you know something's up. Karl doesn't do defense. Karl doesn't do compromise. If Karl says something, it's for one purpose and one purpose only, serving the fortunes of the Republican party. But it's not just that Karl is trying to disassociate his party from the biggest foreign policy disaster in generations, one that has the GOP's sticky fingerprints all over it like a child's sippy cup. No, he's also - I kid you not and I'm laughing as I type this - giving advice to Democrats:

Rove believes Democrats will want the Iraq issue "toned down" in order to avoid a situation in which a winning Democratic presidential candidate faces either a precipitous withdrawal or an extended engagement which causes a large portion of the Democratic Party to turn on the party's newly elected president.

So no one talk about Iraq! There's nothing to see here, just keep moving along boyo and pay no attention to the chaos and death and American resentment the war is breeding - brought to you by George W. Bush and the Republican party.

Thanks for the advice Karl. Duly noted. Here's a thought, why don't you let those who are going to vote for a Democratic president worry about how we'll react to the options we're left with to clean up your mess.

Now, for some advice that might actually help Democrats on the campaign trail, let's check with the All Spin Zone:

One, given the extremely unpopular war in Iraq…including ever eroding GOP support…the Democrats need to feature Iraq as an obstacle to keeping the homeland safe…connecting it with the draining of important resources…including military reserves, essential equipment, limited intelligence capabilities, and of course gobs of cash…all of which could improve our ability to monitor and prevent attacks in the United States.

If that sort of thing were your goal......I'm looking at you, Michael Chertoff.

Still, Karl Rove is not a stupid man, and it's totally in character for him to co-opt his opponents' popular message of troops coming home. But don't be fooled. Like with anything Karl says, this too is geared towards helping Republicans:

Bush is vetoing any such actions now because they are not on HIS timetable. His timetable is timed perfectly with November of every even year. That’s the timetable of most concern to the Bush White House. Whatever works to make Republicans stay in power is what works for Bush. They assume many things wrongly because of this. For example, the surge is a failure, not complete, but a failure nonetheless. Violence continues. Political solutions are somewhere at the bottom of the dank Euphrates that runs through Baghdad.

But none of that matters. It is all a matter of perception. This is why the public face is what it is. They are selling a story. They have to follow the script.

Whatever political calculations Karl is using, let's hope he's using HIS math.

As I pointed out recently, in the aftermath of the recent terrorism incidents in the UK, some rightwing bloggers lamented that, because the attcks weren't more successful, the government did not have the free reign to do what needed to be done, which in this case meant instituting an authoritarian police state. Back on our side of the pond, DHS chief Michael Chertoff bases his latest terror threat alert on a "gut feeling" while simultaneously skimping on security funding for NYC. Keep that in mind as we take a look at what former Republican senator Rick Santorum said on Hugh Hewitt's radio show the other day:

"Between now and November, a lot of things are going to happen, and I believe that by this time next year, the American public's going to have a very different view of this war, and it will be because, I think, of some unfortunate events, that like we're seeing unfold in the UK. But I think the American public's going to have a very different view."

So, when this next unknown yet "spectacular" attack comes, it will be "unfortunate" for the rest of us, but the political upside is it's good for the GOP! We'll go back to that immediately-post-9/11 mindset and Republicans will sweep into power once again. Now, I hate to bring up the obvious, so I'll leave that to the blog Philadelphia Will Do:

How a terrorist attack during a Republican presidential administration would make people vote Republican is beyond me, but Ol' Ricky says the attack is totally going to keep the Republicans in power.

Hey, it happened once already. But let's look at the dynamic here. Keeping people afraid with vague threats of spectacular terrorist attacks, while simultaneously shorting funds to defend against said attacks. Doesn't that seem counterproductive? Over at Eschaton, Avedon Carol says, yes, for us, but not for them:

Shouldn't it concern us that Republicans are constantly talking about how people will all wise up when the next terrorist attack at home comes?

I mean, they really seem to be looking forward to it, and they take great delight in the thought that, by God, people will see things differently when it happens.

They relish the thought. They hunger for that terrorist attack they need to save their Party.

I...think Democrats would be wise to talk on TV about how the last thing we need is to put people in power who have such a stake in having terrorists attack Americans.

Corrente calls it malign neglect. Matthew Yglesias puts it somewhat kinder, but makes it clear that this kind of fear mongering from the GOP is not a bug, it's a feature:

There's really, even, a larger structural issue here. Namely that while clearly on some level the conservative movement would like to make the country safer from terrorism, on another level everyone knows that mass fear of foreign threats to Americans' physical security are a boon to the conservative movement's fortune. On the one hand, this creates systematic incentives to overstate the extent and nature of the real threats facing America. On the other hand, it creates systematic incentives to ensure that such threats as do exist are never ameliorated. In particular, it gives everyone a very strong self-interest in not understanding the extent to which overreacting can be counterproductive since both the overreaction itself and the counterproductive blowback may serve the interests of the Republican Party.

And in what I'm sure is a completely unrelated bit of non-news, it's now been 2,123 days since Bush declared he'd get bin Laden "dead or alive." (Hat tip to Bob Geiger)

If John McCain's campaign gets any leaner, it'll be declared anorexic. Campaign manager, chief political strategist, deputy campaign manager and political director. Gone, gone, gone and gone. And we're left to wonder why, when things were going so well:

One possible reason: Second-quarter FEC reports are due by Sunday, at which point the campaign is going to have to account for precisely how it spent itself practically out of existence.

UPDATE: This statement from McCain:

ARLINGTON, VA - U.S. Senator John McCain issued the following statement today:

"Today, John Weaver and Terry Nelson offered their resignations from my presidential campaign, which I accepted with regret and deep gratitude for their dedication, hard work and friendship. Terry is a consummate professional, who has ably lead this campaign through a challenging political environment. John Weaver has been my friend and trusted counselor for many years and to whom I am greatly indebted. In the days and weeks ahead this campaign will move forward, and I will continue to address the issues of greatest concern to the American people, laying out my vision for a secure and prosperous America."

Shorter version: "I fired them."

Some remaining McCain advisors, his wife, I think, and that kid who brings the coffee, have drawn comparisons to when John Kerry dismissed several top staffers in 2004. But the rightwing blogs, no fans of the Maverick, are determined to write this particular obituary:

I was pretty sure McCain was consoling himself with fairy tales about John Kerry. As far as I'm concerned, however, these are just the dreams of an embittered, delusional old man who came to believe his own PR too strongly.

The GOP base despises McCain. He’s crazed enough to think he can win without the base - after all, the media loves, just loves him - but at some point in the not too distant future some wise man is going to lead him aside and tell him he’s just making a fool of himself.

Check that: a bigger fool of himself.

Well, he does do it better than anyone else.

When you hitch your fortunes to immigration reform and the Iraq war, both of which are official unmitigated disasters, even trying to play it straight becomes unintentionally ironic:

In an entertaining bit of symbolism, these statements signaling that McCain's campaign is imploding were sent out just as McCain himself is arguing in a speech on the Senate floor right now that the surge in Iraq is showing signs of success. Fitting, that.

So where does the Maverick go from here? Until he decides to take his campaign out back for an Old Yeller moment, it seems he's determined to see this thing through to the bitter, depressing, utterly futile end:

Perhaps McCain will continue on in his push for the Presidency. This is his Bob Dole moment, realize. It is his last chance. Now, however, he's little more than an embarrassing, completely out-of-touch sideshow. When you can't poll anywhere near Fred Thompson, and when the Ron Paul juggernaut is breathing down your neck, it's time to exit the stage, and perhaps pay attention to matters in Arizona for a change.

If not, we may see McCain hanging around outside convention halls in Iowa and NH with a shabby coat and a cardboard sign that says, "Brother can you spare a vice-presidential nomination?"

So, here we are, six months - or one Friedman Unit (F.U.) - after the start of the Surge. Six months after various media pundits, rightwing cheerleaders and people who should know better went on as they have for years now that THIS is our last chance at success in Iraq. That if we don't find the pony, that'll be IT. Make or break. All those other do-overs were just gimmes. THIS is for all the marbles, so just everyone cool their jets and give the Surge time to work.

Aaaand six months later, just in time for the interim Iraq report to come out, what have we learned? Are we about to find the pony? Tim F. at Balloon Juice says, no, no pony today:

Remember, we supposedly dumped X thousand troops into Baghdad so that we could keep the violence down. It didn’t work – no political progress was made, no rapport has formed between the warring factions, deaths are up any way you choose to count them (coalition, Iraqi army, Iraqi civilians) and a company of soldiers cannot move four miles through Baghdad without running through multiple ambushes.

.....

The writing is on the wall, in the sky, hanging over the road in giant blinking neon lights. Put a fork in this war. It’s done.

Public support for the war continues to plummet, and even some Republican senators are making unhappy noises. And they want you, the public, to know that they hear you...despite all previous evidence to the contrary:

For those of you who are alarmed by the anti-democratic tendencies of today's GOP, you needn't worry any longer: The leader of the Senate Republicans has just conceded to his constituents that their opinions -- and those of the public at large -- are "not irrelevant."

An article in USA Today captures the surreal but revealing scene:

HOPKINSVILLE, Ky — Just down the road at Fort Campbell on Thursday, TV cameras captured a wrenching scene: tearful spouses exchanging last hugs and toddlers clinging to parents' desert fatigues as troops prepared to ship out for a 15-month deployment.

Hours later, the man who must try to hold Senate Republicans together in this week's debate on Iraq delivered a luncheon speech here to 130 local business and political leaders. Mitch McConnell, Kentucky's senior senator and his party's Senate leader, did not sugarcoat the situation.

"The majority of the public has decided the Iraq effort is not worth it," he said. "That puts a lot of pressure on Congress to act because public opinion in a democracy is not irrelevant."

Phew, thank God for that. I was getting worried there for a minute.

And don't think the President doesn't have his finger on the pulse of the public. He's launching a new PR campaign to spread the word, he is now more than willing to draw down troops in Iraq IF, if...we find the pony:

This is the “new” campaign in a nutshell: if the nation gives Bush more time, and the same policy that’s been failing miraculously starts working, then the president will consider some degree of troop withdrawal. That’s it.

In other words, there’s no news here at all. The Bush gang are hard at work trying to shape a new sales pitch, not a new policy. They’re hoping to slap a fresh coat of paint on a car that’s already on fire.

Now, this might not seem like the most effective plan to get an increasingly hostile public to back the war, much less anxious members of his own party. This is where rightwing bloggers step in (!) Y'see, the problem is people keep reading about all the bad stuff in Iraq. Like GOP Bloggers, who's unveiling their new master plan to win the war, get the girl (or girl-like animatron) and ride their pony off into the sunset. It's called, I kid you not, Operation Good News, and it is like it sounds:

Simply put, Gen. Petraeus needs support in the Senate so he can continue killing AQI terrorists in Iraq. That's why I'm officially announcing the start of Operation Good News. The key to Operation Good News is to giving senators that have announced their support for S. 1545 proof that the surge is working. We can only do that by (a) sending them articles each day that report on the progress being made in Diyala and Anbar provinces and Baghdad and (b) urging them to withdraw their support for S. 1545.

We should send proof each day that Gen. Petraeus' surge is working to Lamar Alexander, Pete Domenici, Richard Lugar, John Warner and Judd Gregg for now. We will add other Republican senators who aren't fighting for victory in Iraq if the need arises. Hopefully, this is the complete list.

It's essential that we do this on a daily basis because the Agenda Media will bombard Republicans in Washington with polls 'showing that the American people don't support the war' and the Democrats will bombard them with negative articles to 'prove' that the surge isn't working. The only way we'll change their minds is if we're able to provide them with the proof that the surge is working and casualties are dropping. It's that simple.

So, by sending their Senators a bunch of positive articles about Iraq from that lying MSM "Agenda Media" that wants nothing but defeat in Ira...wait...but they....

Does not compute! Does not compute!

Anyway, just because you don't look at a poll saying Americans don't support the war, doesn't mean they do. And to be fair, Democrats don't have to bombard them with negative articles. They can use things like Iraq progress reports.

Still......clap louder, or Tinkerbell dies!

First, former White House political director and Rove-aide Sara Taylor wanted to honor her subpoena testify for those nice Democrats in the prosecutor purge investigation, she really did, but wouldn't because the White House asked her not to. When that stonewalling bit of legal comedy failed to pass muster, the White House played it's well-worn Executive Privilege card. Again. And the clock continues ticking:

"The White House position is extremely weak," Breuer said. "You can invoke privilege if it's honestly believed, but Congress has an absolute right to understand the basis on which you're claiming privilege. . . . I think the administration has decided that, at this point, they want to fight it as long as they can. It may go to court."

All well and good, to a certain extent. But note what's happening here. The White House position is "extremely weak." But more than that, it's a position that's been to court and lost before. The "administration," though, seeks to burn up the calendar by forcing Congress to reinvent the wheel, just to prove to the American people that the wheel was, in fact, invented at one point. Which will be proven by showing the court the first wheel, and then describing the round and rolling properties of the object the White House claims is something completely different.

The administration has done so much stonewalling in this investigation, the wall itself now stretches from Karl's office to just west of Bethesda and can be seen from space. Even questions over whether Bush's stonewalling claim of executive privilege is legitimate are themselves being stonewalled:

Better yet, as of today, the White House position is that Bush is not only refusing to cooperate with the investigation, he’s also refusing to say why he’s refusing to cooperate.

Fielding said in his letter to Leahy and Conyers that lawmakers can be “assured” that Bush is claiming executive privilege appropriately and that, in his context, “it has been appropriately documented.”

Persuasive, isn’t it? The president is taking an expansive view of privilege, he’s blocking willing witnesses from honoring a subpoena, he’s withholding relevant materials, and he’s impinging on an ongoing congressional investigation, but we should all feel “assured” that the White House’s conduct is entirely kosher. Why? Because the White House says so.

"Trust us," says the White House. "We won't let you check for yourselves, but just take our word that this is all legitimate." Apparently the administration thinks everyone paying any attention here was born last night. We know this because they've just recycled this prize-winner, the offer of "private, off the record interviews."

Here we go again with the "you can talk to them so long as you don't tell the public what they said, and so long as you don't take any notes and they're not under oath - so they can lie." Bush thinks he is accountable to no one, to hell with the law.

So is it a war of attrition, where the White House throws out everything and the kitchen sink in an effort to obstruct any investigation? Other options are impeachment or contempt proceedings, or...play the waiting game and hope Bush passes out from holding his breath.

The last time we checked in with Eliot Spitzer, he had just steamrolled his way into the New York governor's mansion and was promising to do the same to anyone who stood in the way of his agenda. State Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno (R_Rensselaer) was circling the wagons around budding corruption charges and digging in his heels as Spitzer threatened his hold on Albany's reins. Months later, things are going about as you'd expect. The irresistible force has met the immovable object:

Next thing you know, Sir Spitzer and Sir Bruno will be rushing each other on horseback with lances...Pending bills have been forgotten, and the whole of New York has been swept up in the excitement of watching the upstart Governor challenge the old bull Majority Leader. True, passing a road tax is extremely boring, while watching politicians accuse each other of spying and nefarious activities is so much fun. Well, bring out the popcorn, enjoy the show, and let New York choke on traffic while Spitzer and Bruno smoke each other out.

Actually, congestion pricing is about the only thing that Senate Majority Leader Oil and Governor Water can agree upon. So what could possibly be the holdup? Who could...? Waitaminute...There's Eliot...Joe......Hey! Where's Shelly?

But like so many policies crucial to the city's fate, congestion pricing requires approval from Albany before it can be implemented. Governor Spitzer supports the plan. The State Senate passed legislation to implement it. But the State Assembly has refused to act, despite the fact that $500 million in federal transportation funding may depend on quick action.

Uh-huh. That 3rd man in the room, Democratic Assembly leader Sheldon Silver, still lurking in the shadows, using his leverage to...well, to do what is less clear as, once again, nothing's actually getting done. But what's also not clear is whether the people want something to be done:

A friend emails from the Folks on the Island Festival on Governor's Island: Kickng off the Folks on the Island Festival on Governors Island:

Just now the legendary singer Odetta came out against congestion pricing.

"A toll to come onto the island of New York? Excuse me?" she said. She then opened with the Spitzer campaign anthem This Little Light of Mine. After all, it is Governors Island.

It's easy to knock a new tax that will adversely affect thousands of lower and lower-middle-class people who live and work in the area and don't have a choice. Current public transit options in the affacted areas are already maxed out. And it's not hard to imagine the revenue from this tax being misspent or frittered away by the MTA, who wouldn't know fiscal responsibility if it wore a bell and a nametag. But just think, if it worked....

Congestion pricing, at its worst, will be an ineffective, needless, pricey tax on the poor. At its best, it'll make life better for New York City residents in all sorts of ways, improving their bottom line. God, and the devil, are in the details. If they actually improve infrastructure, like more park-and-ride for outer-outer-borough residents, give us a 7 train that's not always under construction, actually enforce congestion pricing for ALL New Yorkers, then we'll get a cleaner, more prosperous city. If they give us just another tax that ruins the lives of the lower-middle-class, Manhattan's going to speed up its transition to the Giant Mall Across the East River.

And if that's the case, maybe everyone's dragging their feet on this idea for a reason.

I know a lot of people are mad about Bush pardoning Libby. But can't we just think about things from poor Scooter's point of view? $250,000 is a lot of money to come up with...in only 3 days. One of which was a holiday. Right after Bush handed him his Get Out of Jail Free Card, Digby wondered if maybe Libby's friends at FOX held a bakesale for him?

I just saw the Fox Allstars practically pole dancing over this, saying outright that Libby's pals are going to pay his fines for him and that he'll have no problem finding work. High fives all around. They got so excited that they forgot they were supposed to be all dour and somber over the horrible, awful punishment that poor little Scooter is going to have to endure even though he isn't spending a day in jail.

Alright, so maybe the money wasn't really a problem. But think of his reputation! Sure, pundits like David Brooks will still write fawning op-eds in the New York Times about him, but...he's a convicted felon! Who would possibly hire him?

Fact: after Mr. Libby was indicted and resigned from Mr. Cheney's staff, he was named a fellow at the Hudson Institute, a conservative think tank. The Washington Post reported that his salary is probably at least $160,000--perhaps more. Most readers would think that with such a position Mr. Libby's career was not over.

And here I thought conservatives hated welfare. So, OK, the fine's paid and he's got a cushy job at a think tank. But the supervised release! Serious restrictions on his freedoms for 2 years!...err, maybe. Maybe not. It seems Bush's commutation has raised some questions about that:

It’s like a second sentence, one to supervision, which begins after your jail sentence ends. That’s why the law says supervised release follows a jail sentence, and why Judge Walton is concerned that if Libby doesn’t go to jail in the first instance, he can’t be put on supervised release when he gets out.

Sooooooo. Money - no problem; job - no problem; no probation - no problem. Hey, y'know what? That's a pretty sweet deal after all! But before you go thinking you or I could never get that treatment, thanks to President Bush, someday we might:

* Sentencing experts cannot find a single other instance in American history in which someone sentenced to prison had received a presidential commutation without having served any part of that sentence. (Bush is quite a trailblazer.)

* Defense attorneys can't wait to take advantage of the can of worms the president has opened. One legal expert said, "I anticipate that we're going to get a new motion called 'the Libby motion.'"

It's a new legal precedent. Perjury and obstruction of justice are no longer jailable offenses. Thanks, Mr. President! Thanks, Scooter!

Much is being said about GOP candidates distancing themselves from Bush, but really, I'm not seeing it. In fact, it seems like each one of them is trying to out-Bush Bush in one area or another. And since the rest of the GOP, while talking a good game, are not actually doing anything to reverse any of the president's disastrous policies, we can only assume the party is embracing the Bush legacySo , we ask the question, "Who is the rightful successor to the Bush legacy?" Is it the super-pro-business Mitt Romney? The Iraq-is-going-just-fine John McCain? Or the 9/11-9/11-9/11 Rudy Giuliani? All fine choices to be sure, but now another candidate...well, almost-candidate, is making his bid to carry on the fine traditions of the Bush administration:

On his exploratory website, [Fred] Thompson boasts that he “gained national attention” as the “hard-charging counsel” who took the “lead” in revealing the audio-taping system in Nixon’s Oval Office.

It all sounds quite impressive — just so long as you overlook the fact that Thompson was actually relentlessly partisan and anxious to protect Nixon during the Watergate investigation.

Thompson was so anxious that he leaked investigation findings to the White House. It seems the Boston Globe took a look at Thompson's all-but-forgotten Watergate memoir, "At That Point in Time," and found Thompson's own admission:

"Even though I had no authority to act for the committee, I decided to call [Nixon counsel] Fred Buzhardt at home" to tell him that the committee had learned about the taping system, Thompson wrote. "I wanted to be sure that the White House was fully aware of what was to be disclosed so that it could take appropriate action."

Hmmmmmmmm. "Appropriate action." Now what do you suppose that could mean? And could that "appropriate action" have taken about, say, 18 minutes?

A staunch Nixon supporter, Thompson claims that he expected the tapes to be exculpatory, and therefore thought their public release would not threaten Nixon's presidency. His memoir claims that he was shocked, SHOCKED, when it turned out that they were incriminating:

"Looking back, I wonder how I could have failed to realize at once...the significance of the tapes."

But is it possible that Thompson thought the "appropriate action" was not the public release of the tapes, but their destruction? Why else did the White House need advance notice of the tapes' existence?

Kind of undercuts the whole "hard charging counsel who took the lead" image. Digby isn't "wondering" how Fred could've missed the significance of the tapes:

It probably makes more sense that Thompson knew very well that Nixon was a criminal (and liked him all the more for it) but jumped off the sinking ship like the rat he is after the tapes surfaced and nobody in public life could defend him anymore without appearing to be brainwashed or insane.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. Cheney and Bush would be proud. Leaking. Bending over backwards to defend egregious abuses of executive power, and then paying absolutely no price for it.

No wonder he's such a staunch defender of Scooter Libby. They're practically 2 peas in a pod.

We have a new "Worst Historical Analogy for Iraq Ever!"

First, the administration compared the Iraq mission to North and South Korea, which isn't comparing apples to oranges as much as it's comparing apples to an ostrich, or a coffee table. Then Iraq was going to be like Northern Ireland, where senseless sectarian violence has been going on for centuries. Then there was suggesting Iraq view Israel as a role model, because if there's anything that war-ravaged Arabs want to be like, it's Israel. And now, Iraq is like the US War of Independence. Over in Shakesville, they're saying Bush is treating Iraq like a Rorshach test:

The Psychologist-in Chief whips out a new inkblot on which to project our hopes for Iraq: Revolutionary War America, conflating images of Continental Army soldiers trading pitchforks for muskets to defend their homeland with National Guardsmen sent to play referee in another nation's civil war unleashed by, well, us.

To be fair, it does kind of ring a bell. Loosely knit local rivals fighting a successful guerrilla war against the world's mightiest military power. Beyond that, the analogy sort of breaks down:

The Revolutionary War was a movement initiated from inside the colonies - not thrust upon the colonials from an outside, invading power which toppled our leadership and infrastructure, and then had utterly no plan at all for reconstruction. The men who fought in the Revolutionary War knew precisely why they were fighting, and what the stakes were. They were fighting for freedom from domestic oppression.

Also, the pursuit of that war was based on truth, and not lies for conquest.

How completely stupid do his handlers and speech-writers think Bush's audiences must be?

Those who fail to learn from history are....something something something. Indeed, a closer inspection of this analogy begs the question, who's playing what role?

Interestingly, if we are the British, in the present day Iraq, then what does it make the British? The British must be the French then...I am getting confused. Thanks, Mr. President. Doh, they can't be the French! The French supported the insurgents! (George Washington and the rest)

...

In Iraq, US stands alone for all practical purposes, just like the British stood alone in the American colonies, fighting General Washington's "insurgents" and "terrorists". Except, of course, for the German mercenaries. That's it! The British in Iraq today are just like the German mercenaries in America then. So, we are the British, and the British are the German, not the French. Silly me.

And so the administration will no doubt continue searching for another horribly inept analogy to try to rouse some enthusiasm for the war. Fortunately, there aren't that many more comparisons to be made:

bush has now compared the iraq war to the revolutionary war, the spanish american war, world war one, world war two, the cold war, the korean war, and the vietnam war. i think we can also throw in the gulf war since the iraq war is arguably just a continuation of that war.

so what's he gonna compare it to next? the war of 1812? some other people have compared it to the barbary wars, maybe bush will pick up on that. um, what else have we got? panama? grenada? kosovo? any of the invasions of haiti? the war against mexico? the various indian wars? is he allowed to use the french and indian war even though that took place before 1776? what happens when he runs out?

in any event, i'm guessing he won't go with the civil war.

Of course not. Makes too much sense.

Fewer scenes say "classic Americana" than the 4th of July in the nation's heartland. Watching small town parades from your flag-draped porch, wafting aromas of hot dogs on the grill and apple pies cooling on the sill. Of course, this being a campaign year on a day like that in Iowa, you can't throw a rock without hitting three or four presidential candidates. And so it was no surprise that Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney, spouses in tow, bumped into each other, and small talk platitudes flowed like soda from the fountain:

Apparently even the weather was too controversial to talk about, given global warming as an issue. The only thing political seemed to be the good byes, when each candidate seemed to implicitly declare they would win the nomination they are seeking...

"We'll see you guys some more," Mitt Romney said. "Yes, you will," Sen. Clinton quickly shot back.

For snappy comebacks, I'm afraid I can only give that a 3.0. She'll have to do better. And speaking of doing better, Barack Obama made his way around the Hawkeye state, and he could hardly ask for a more accepting crowd:

Fairfax Iowa, the home for Transcendental Meditators, let by the once famed Maharish Maresh Yogi, was home to a campaign stop by the vitalic Obama, and as has become a common story, the thousand plus in attendance were captivated by the Senator's speech.

Granted, that's not saying much as they're also easily captivated by geodesic domes and aromatherapy. But not everyone was in Iowa. Duncan Hunter and Bill Richardson took advantage of the Iowa gridlock to have NH to themselves. As for some others...:

A few of the candidates decided to be elsewhere. John Edwards was one, but he's been in the state so many times, he's probably met every single resident already. Except the local hair stylists. Rudy Giuliani was a no-show. For him, Iowa is somewhere west of New York City.

"Except the local hairstylists." Ha Ha Ha! Ohhh, dear...It's funny because it's irrelevant.

And then there's John McCain, whose campaign is on the rocks and hemorrhaging money. Conventional wisdom is that he absolutely needs a strong showing in Iowa. So where was the Maverick?

John McCain headed to Iraq - maybe he thought he stands a better chance of getting elected there?

Could be. It's not like Iraq exactly has an illegal immigration problem. People there are trying to get out, not in.

Justice is served! Now we can put this whole sordid affair of who-lied-to-what-grand-jury and who-covered-up-for-who behind us and move forward as a nation. At least that's the case if you listen to rightwing bloggers and Betltway pundits:

Libby was tried by an abusive prosecutor out for fame and name who knew Libby had nothing to do with the exposure of Valerie Plame's identity to the media, but all the same caught Libby in misrecollections of events.

It was just simple misrecollections! Mistakes anyone could make! There was no crime. Except the ones the jury found him guilty of. And it's that little detail that's not going to win Andrew McCarthy any friends by pointing out to the rest of the crack staff at The Corner:

Witnesses have varying recollections, and juries sort it out. The evidence that Libby lied, rather than that he was confused, was compelling. And the jury was dilligent...on the one count where the evidence was considerably weaker than the others, they acquitted him. They convicted him on the other four charges, reluctantly, because they had no choice if they were going to honor their oaths.

Now, as much as Bush respects the jury and the legal process, he felt this was a time for a classic Bush "compromise". A judge says "30 months." Bush says, "Hmmm. Seems like a little too much. How about...nothing?" Some would call that hypocrisy. Others would call it obstruction of justice. The Carpetbagger Report has another interesting word for it:

Perhaps we should call this what it is: "amnesty." In conservative circles, there's a standard approach to law and order: we need tougher sentences, inflexible mandatory-minimums, and harsh punishment for those found to have broken U.S. law. But if you help expose the identity of a covert CIA agent during a war, lie about it, and are convicted by a jury on multiple felony counts, those standards no longer apply.

But those standards are for other people. Scooter's not like the rest of us, he's special. And so is the editorial board at the Washington Post. And sensible pundits like David Brooks and David Broder, who are very pleased that Scooter doesn't have to sully himself in a common jail, they're special too I'll let Jane Hamsher explain how special:

Demonstrating his complete contempt for trial by jury, rule of law and his own Department of Justice appointees, George Bush thumbed his nose once again at the very concept of democracy and the Beltway Brahmins are cheering. The dirty unwashed masses who populate our juries are fit to judge each other, but evidently not the ruling class. David Broder can breathe a sigh of relief that People Like Him are safe from those overly zealous US Attorneys who might want to hold them accountable to the same absurd standards that the little people must live by.

How quaint.

Nobody's surprised Scooter skated. No one's surprised Bush gave the rule of law the same respect Rodney Dangerfield's wives gave him - none. But just because you can see it coming doesn't make it any less galling when it arrives:

UPDATE - Atrios had an excellent idea:

Call the White House

Politely tell them what you think about the commutation.

Comments: 202-456-1111

Light 'em up.

....Bill Frist proclaims The Maverick is "NOT a candidate in a persistent vegetative state."

It's one thing to "shake up" a flagging campaign by moving some staff around, making strategic cuts, running a leaner, meaner campaign. But firing 50+ staffers? That's not delicate surgery, that's amputation of several major limbs. And it doesn't exactly send a positive message:

It's likely that McCain is firing at least 50 staffers to show the GOP establishment and major donors that he recognizes that there's a problem with his campaign and that he's taking steps to improve his chances. But just as April's shake-up didn't help McCain get back on track, July's will probably have about as much success.

Indeed, if the announcement was about "sending a message," it's conveying the wrong message -- McCain looks desperate and directionless today. And with a paltry $2 million cash on hand, he's not even in a position to turn things around.

Other than a snazzy art-deco-meets-imperial-stormtrooper-chic website of his, it's hard to see where all the cash went. Maybe fuel prices for the Straight Talk Express are a little steep these days:

The astonishing number is McCain's $2 million CoH. How is that possible? What has he spent $22 million dollars on? Has he even produced or run a single solitary ad? How many…staffers was he paying? What kind of caviar were they buying for lunch? That's just mismanagement on an epochal scale. This is from the guy who's supposed to be the porkbuster.

What's worse is that once that bad mojo gets some momentum, you start to look like other has-beens and never-weres:

Considering that bad news is itself a major blow that will make money even harder to raise, is this Phil Gramm '96 redux? Only where the candidate can't raise any money?

Ouch. Of course, while the media will no doubt scratch their heads over the downfall of their darling Maverick, the GOP base isn't surprised at all:

This is proof of how little the media knows. Just a few months ago they were talking about McCain as the presumptive GOP favorite. Yet anyone who had actually talked to a registered Republican knew then what everyone knows now: the Republican base has a pretty intense dislike for McCain.

So as the rubberneckers gawk at the death throes of McCain's campaign, others are already handicapping what could be a slightly smaller GOP field. From the Corner:

I think the big winner is Fred Thompson, with Mitt Romney gaining a little, too and Rudy Giuliani losing (he has always needed a large field to maintain his footing in a race where he is the odd man out ideologically).

Eh. Take it with a big chunk of salt. It's a pretty damn large field even if McCain drops out, but I still think a lot of people will be surprised if someone like Ron Paul stayed in longer.

The primary goal of terrorism, as a means to achieve social or political change, is to, y'know, terrorize. To make fear dictate how our societies operate. Along those lines, Jonah Goldberg seems to be upset the failed London bombing wasn't more successful than they were:

Anyway, the irony is that from a policy standpoint, it seems to me that security officials have to view things like the failed London bombing as basically no different than a successful bombing. But because the bombing failed, the policy options to security officials are far narrower precisely because the bombing failed and therefore didn't rouse the sort of political reaction it might otherwise have.

And by political reaction, he means voluntarily giving up your liberties in an effort to be 100% safe, all the time, and succumbing to the fear that terrorists are going to hide in your groceries and sneak into your house! Problem is, the ones carrying out these attacks aren't exactly the sharpest knives in the drawer:

As events unfold I'm simply asking that folks take a big deep breath and try to keep things in perspective. Are there jihadist extremists in the world who are willing to kill innocents? Absolutely. Are they amenable to negotiation? No. I am not in the, "have you hugged a terrorist today" camp. However, we need to stop equating their hatred with actual capability.

Indeed, one of the suspects in the Glasgow incident may have been a brilliant doctor, but they're lousy bomb makers. And second of all, giving up your liberties not only does the terrorists work for them, it doesn't even prevent these things from happening:

The attacks failed because they were organized by incompetent terrorists who failed on their own, not because the UK government did anything in particular to stop or prevent the attacks despite the deep erosion of civil liberties during the Blair years.

So what can we do? Remain vigilant, obviously, and...Don't Panic!

I am not scared. Wasn't scared before 9/11, haven't been since and this reflexive compulsion to scream endlessly about what some comically stupid idiots did at an airport where the only persons hurt where the chumps who did it has...got...to...stop.

But it won't, if for no other reason than you can't get a decent authoritarian police state in place these days unless people are good and terrorized. And so the rightwing alarmists will continue doing what they do. Or as Tbogg put it:

I've said before that these are the kind of people who start pondering cannibalism when the motor on the boat conks out ten feet from shore.

Remember, nobopdy ever had a really brilliant idea in the middle of a panic attack.

With last week's announcement that Barack Obama was on his way to getting over 250,000 individual donors to contribute to his campaign, we knew his eventual 2nd quarter take was going to be impressive, and indeed it was. Even conservative blogs like Outside the Beltway are giving Obama props:

Obama has come from seemingly nowhere to put together a strong organization and make himself the main alternative to Clinton, despite the advantages that other rivals, most notably former vice presidential nominee John Edwards, seemingly had.

I continue to have a hard time seeing Obama get the nomination with his thin resume and the nomination remains Clinton’s to lose. He’s got the resources to make a game of it, though, and it’s going to be hard for anyone else to catch him if Clinton stumbles.

Of course, not all conservatives bloggers are willing to give Obama any praise, but few have proven as adept at spinning Obama's take as a negative as Patrick Ruffini at Hugh Hewitt's blog, saying that money's not everything, and that even donor enthusiasm doesn't mean much, or at least it shouldn't: (emphasis mine)

When it comes to raising money, enthusiasm now beats connections and even overall support every time. That’s something high-dollar focused Republican campaigns (and Hillary, who runs her campaigns like Bush) need to be thinking long and hard about. Romney and Hillary’s connections could only get them to roughly $20 million. Obama’s enthusiasm got him to $32 million. At some point,we have to begin asking whether this phenomenon of Internet candidates outraising the frontrunners is more the rule, rather than the exception. And whether or not that cheapens the impact of a win in the money primary.

...

Primary loser Howard Dean and probable loser Barack Obama both cleaned up in the money game. They showed it’s easier than ever to cobble together an army of true believers on the Internet that not only equals but defeats the bundlers (Obama’s approach is more of a hybrid, though). But at the end of the day, Dean didn’t win, and Obama is plummeting in the polls

Or to put it another way, big money donors are more important than small donors, and if you don't agree, just look at what we did to the last populist candidate who raised a ton of money on the net.

But Real Clear Politics takes a more nuanced view of things, concluding you can't learn everything from just polls, especially this early out:

With each new poll that's been released…there's been a corresponding crush of media stories talking about Clinton's expanding lead and reinforcing the various pre-packaged story lines about the inevitability of her winning the nomination…If you factor in Obama's other asset - his high favorable rating among Democrats and Independents - with his new display of money muscle, the picture that emerges is that Obama is in a much stronger position, and Clinton in a much weaker one, than the polls suggest.

The early coronation of Clinton as the nominee by the Washignton establishment - because she's one of them, and by the conservative base - because they desperately want to run against her negativity ratings, will happen no matter how much Obama raises or how many donors he has. Fortunately for him, their opinions don't mean as much to Democratic primary voters.

This may surprise some of you, but I say give them the raise. My generosity, believe me, isn't because they've set the world on fire - it's more because I worry about a bad situation getting worse.

No one becomes a lawmaker for a huge payday but if compensation doesn't at least keep up with cost of living - think of who can afford to hold office. Experienced lawmakers can always make a ton more in the private sector, and if only the wealthy don't have to worry about the size of their paycheck - that's hardly a congress of "we the people".

Lawmakers have to maintain residences both in the expensive Washington housing market and back in their district. Trust me, nobody is making a mint as a lawmaker, and while no tears are necessary, neither is being penny wise and pound foolish.