ATTENTION ALL LOBBYISTS: STENY HOYER HAS A PRICE TAG ON HIS ASS. GOLFING IN THE CARIBBEAN ANYONE?

I was just driving home from a meeting and I was listening to "Marketplace" on KCRW. The show ended with a correction. It was about a low-down Inside-the-Beltway politician/K Street operator who was taking a planeful of lobbyists on a golfing trip. They weren't going to Scotland and the arch villain in this little vignette wasn't lowlife Majority Leader Tom DeLay; it was lowlife Majority Leader Steny Hoyer. The correction: Hoyer's staff came whining to NPR that it wasn't 137 rooms (as had been reported); NPR had counted some rooms twice that were being used on consecutive nights. When NPR asked how many lobbyists were going golfing with the Majority Leader in all... they stopped whining and started hemming and hawing. Yes bigger than a breadbox but "around" 60 or so.

I thought this is why we worked our asses off last year-- not to make slimy hacks careers better but to bring honesty and decency back to our government. So now instead of Tom DeLay and Denny Hastert we're stuck with the equally reprehensible Steny Hoyer and Rahm Emanuel. These people don't belong leading the Democratic Party; they belong in prison-- along with anyone else, of either party, who thinks being elected to public office means dining at the public trough-- and golfing with lobbyists, whether in Scotland or Puerto Rico.

I'm sure the Rio Mar Beach Golf Resort and Spa is no St Andrews but the idea is the same-- corruption. Technically the trip is not illegal and Hoyer can't be dragged before a judge and thrown in prison. But that's because of the absurdity of allowing politicians to write the laws governing their own behavior. The trip is being paid for by Hoyer's PAC and NPR explains how it works:

This is the way the leadership PAC loophole works: Hoyer's guests give thousands of dollars to his PAC. Because there are few restrictions on how PAC money can be spent, Hoyer's PAC uses some of the cash to pay for the congressman's trip to Puerto Rico. The PAC also provides entertainment, golf, even nifty little gifts bags for all the guests. The lobbyists and donors who have supplied the cash for this party then pay their own way to Puerto Rico. And in return for their generosity, they get to golf and hang with the congressman in the Caribbean.

Am I saying that Hoyer should be stripped of his job as majority Leader? Yes. Am I saying that Hoyer should be kicked out of the Democratic Caucus? Yes. Am I suggesting to the good folks back in Maryland's 5th CD that they defeat him and elect ah honest congressman instead? Of course I am.

Or maybe I'm mixing up this corrupt Steny Hoyer with a different Steny Hoyer. I better think that through. NPR reported on a Steny Hoyer last year who "campaigned hard on ethics reforms. And in the wake of several scandals, harangued Republicans in the House. [He thundered] "The greed and flagrant absues of convicted felons, former Republican member Duke Cunningham and Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff, hang over this House like a dark cloud."

I went to The Google. I typed in "steny hoyer" and 474,000 articles came up. There's only one Steny Hoyer in Congress. It's the same guy! Oh, God! I started reading the articles. This guy sounds really bad! Wonkette said "Steny Hoyer Is A Crook Too" and even the ass-kissin' Washington Post entitled a piece about him "In Hoyer's Rise, Backers Eye Payoff".

This makes me really sick. Didn't the Democrats learn anything from the defeat the Republicans suffered last year, a great part of which was due to the outlandish corruption the leadership of their party was engaged in? I remember when Hoyer was campaigning for Majority Leader he sent his minions out to smear Jack Murtha's reputation by dredging up baseless dirt on a decades old scandal that had long ago been proven a dead-end. And now Hoyer is in power, acting like no one cares about ethics, and he seems determined to drag the Democrats down to a defeat they will have earned for electing a man of no moral character to be their leader.

How can Hoyer lead a party looking into the gargantuan corruption of the Bush Regime and the Republican Culture of Corruption, when he's cut from the same fabric. Just today the Washinton Post's Dan Eggen reports that David Iglesias "the fired U.S. Attorney in New Mexico says he was pressured by two members of Congress prior to the November elections about the pace of an ongoing public corruption probe that targets local Democrats. The American people want a solid and upright sheriff to put an end to this garbage, not a 2-bit broken down whore like Hoyer. Throw the bum out.


HOYER MAY BE K STREET'S FAVE DEM IN THE HOUSE BUT THEY HAVE A LOVERBOY IN THE SENATE TOO: MAX BAUCUS (D-MT)

Ari Berman did a stupendous job this week on an investigative piece on K Steet's biggest pal among Senate Democrats, Max Baucus. Baucus is a living admonishment to progressives who think the only really bad corporate whores are Republican corporate whores. Like Hoyer, Baucus is as bad as a Republican. "Today, in the aftermath of the Democratic sweep of Congress, Baucus is still one of corporate America's favorite Democrats. As chair of the Finance Committee, he counts among his friends and political supporters a Who's Who of bankers, oilmen, ranchers, pharmaceutical lobbyists and Wall Street executives. He's particularly close to Montana's sole billionaire, industrialist Dennis Washington, a major donor to the Republican Party whose business interests Baucus has promoted over the years. The business community, in turn, expresses admiration for Baucus in its usual style--by writing big checks. The Finance Committee has always had an incestuous relationship with corporate lobbyists, and with Baucus at the helm, the tradition continues."

IS THERE A SOLUTION TO THE IRAN NUCLEAR PROBLEM?

Nuclear proliferation is a huge problem and the Bush Regime/Neocon foreign policy agenda of unbridled aggression has pushed several countries along the nuclear path. Once the U.S. has a real president again, this is something that will have to be dealt with in a serious manner. Today the Center for American Progress has released a report with some well thought-out suggestions about how to approach the Iran problem. It's very much worth reading. The short version:

"Contain and Engage: A New Strategy for Resolving the Nuclear Crisis with Iran" outlines choreography for breaking the current impasse over substantive negotiations and a strategy for maximizing the ability of the United States to shape Iran's decision-making. It also lays the groundwork for more effectively containing Iran should the country's divided ruling elites still press ahead with a nuclear enrichment program.

Key elements of the strategy include:

* Isolate Iran as long as it continues with its nuclear enrichment efforts;
* Preserve the unity of the UN Security Council and other nations engaged in negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program;
* Maintain international and national sanctions, however limited;
* Restrict Iran's access to nuclear and missile technologies;
* Break the diplomatic stalemate over Iran's defiance of the Security Council;
* Begin direct dialogue with Iran;
* Invest in new diplomatic and security infrastructure in the Middle East to both better integrate Iran and assure U.S. allies;
* Engage Iran economically, beginning with the gasoline refinery sector;
* Create a regional nuclear fuel bank consortium under IAEA leadership;
* Prepare smart military options to thwart any offensive Iranian military activities;
* Lay the diplomatic groundwork for a long-term strategy of containing Iran should negotiations break down.

In short, the United States must remind Iran of the potential benefits of cooperation as well as the escalating costs of failure to comply with its nonproliferation obligations. Rather than pursue the faint hope that coercive measures will force Iran's capitulation, our contain-and-engage strategy couples the pressures created by sanctions, diplomatic isolation and investment freezes with practical compromises and realizable security assurances to encourage Iran onto a verifiable, non-nuclear weapons path.
The report includes a technical summary of Iran's program, an analysis of Iran's domestic politics, and an overall threat assessment of a nuclear- or near-nuclear Iran.
It also considers and rejects the four main U.S. policy options on Iran - the status quo policy of squeezing Iran; regime change via democracy promotion; air strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities; and a "grand bargain."

Meanwhile, Pakistan already has a nuclear arsenal and is a heartbeat away from rule by Taliban-like fanatics. The Taliban and al-Qaeda operate inside northwest Pakistan with impunity and have established new bases and training camps there. If Bush and the Neocons thought they would be able to divide the Muslim world they have been woefully wrong. Other than a few emirs and kings, almost the entire Muslim world-- and certainly the entire Arab world-- is united... in their unmitigated loathing for the Bush Regime and its Crusader agenda.

DO THE CONGRESSIONAL REPUBLICANS REALLY WANT TO GO THERE?

CNN reported today that the Republican leadership's biggest bribe-taking scumbag Whip, Roy Blunt (R-MO) objects to William Jefferson (D-LA) getting a seat on the Homeland Security Committee. Neither Blunt nor Jefferson have been charged with any bribery-related crimes yet but the FBI found $90,000 in cash inside Jefferson's freezer. Blunt raised over $3,000,000 in the last election cycle alone, most of it from lobbyists and Big Business PACs for whom he is a willing and eager whore. Roy Blunt is one of the half dozen most corrupt members of Congress and his presence in that body is a dark mark on democracy itself. "Hypocrisy" barely begins to define his complaint against Jefferson who is strictly small-potatoes compared the Blunt's systemic organized crime operations.

Blunt called the move by the Speaker Pelosi, who trumped ethics reform in last fall's congressional campaign, "such a contradiction to what the Speaker said she stood for during the campaign."

After the House Democratic caucus approved the committee assignment last night, the matter moves to the House floor. Typically committee assignments are passed unanimously on the floor without recorded votes. But Blunt told reporters on Wednesday that Republicans will object when the issue comes up on the floor and request a recorded vote.

Blunt said, "I think our side will generally think that this is not only not a good idea but totally inconsistent with the major point that the Speaker made when she wanted to be the Speaker-- that this would not be allowed, that there were penalties on their side. And the idea that Homeland Security is somehow less important than the tax-writing committee I think is a ludicrous idea."

But there's even more to that than the juxtaposition between Jefferson's frozen $90,000 and the millions of dollars in bribes scooped up by Blunt. Quite a few Republicans were appointed to powerful committee positions-- with Blunts' connivance-- who are under federal investigation by the FBI, IRS and other federal law enforcement agencies. Most egregious, of course, is Jerry Lewis, ranking member on the House Appropriations Committee. As Chairman of that committee Lewis used it-- and allowed other Republicans like Randy "Duke" Cunningham, Virgil Goode, Duncan Hunter and John Doolittle to use it-- as a way to enrich themselves in return for bilking billions of dollars from American taxpayers at the behest of corrupt lobbyists and contractors and GOP-connected hucksters. Several of Lewis' closest associates have been indicted and he is under investigation by a myriad of federal agencies and has already spent close to a million dollars in legal fees-- even before being indicted himself. But Roy Blunt feels that this sack of shit should be the GOP leader on the very committee he used as a piggy bank?

And what about Gary Miller? He's likely to be the next Republican congressman thrown in the slammer. Yet despite investigations galore, It was just a month ago that Miller was named the ranking member of the Oversight and Investigative Subcommittee of the Financial Service Committee. A DCCC spokesperson summed up what all Americans who are aware of this travesty must be thinking: "House Republicans seem to mistakenly believe that being investigated by the FBI qualifies you for an influential position on the oversight and investigative subcommittee...This kind of lack of leadership and accountability from the GOP is exactly why Americans voted for a change of direction in Congress.”


UPDATE: NEY IS IN PRISON. MILLER ISN'T... YET

Tomorrow is a special day-- and I don't just mean the day in 1954 on which both Opie (Ron Howard) and Daisy Duke (Catherine Bach) were born-- nor even the day, considerably earlier, Chopin was born (or even Roger Daltry). Tomorrow is the day that Republican criminal slime bucket, ex-congressman Bob Ney gets the prison cell door slammed on his fat ass. Two down, at least 100 to go.

I would have guessed that the next to do a little frog walk and get hauled before a judge and jury would have been House crime kingpin Jerry Lewis (R-CA). But, then along comes Gary Miller, a neighbor of Lewis' from the Inland Empire and the OC. Yesterday the DCCC put out this awesome chart that compares Ney's tactics to Miller's. They should have had columns for Tom DeLay and Randy "Duke" Cunningham as well.

Tactic	Bob Ney	Gary Miller
Tactic #1: Claim Not to be a Target of Investigation	In November 2005, Ney's spokesman said, "He has not been told that he is the target of any investigation …" [Cleveland Plain Dealer, 11/19/2005]	According to the Orange County Register, "Miller also said that he hasn't heard from anyone at the FBI or any other federal agency." [Orange County Register, 2/1/07]
Tactic #2: Blame the Media	Ney's spokesman insisted that the media was making inaccurate attacks, claiming "There have been a litany of unfounded allegations made against the congressman by the Washington media in recent months…" [CQ Today, 11/5/06]	Miller has complained of a media smear campaign, claiming, "I've been bashed in the press as though I've done something wrong…" [San Gabriel Valley Tribune, 2/2/07]
Tactic #3: Claim He Hasn't Done Anything Wrong	In January 2006, Ney's spokesman said The congressman is absolutely convinced that he's done nothing wrong." [The Hill, 1/18/06]	According to the Pasadena News, "Miller said ... 'It surprises me,' he said. 'I have no idea why they would. There has been no impropriety.'" [Pasadena Star News, 1/30/07] Miller insists he has "absolutely been falsely accused" [Roll Call, 2/9/07]
Tactic #4: Claim to Be a Victim	Ney's spokesman said that Ney was an unfortunate victim of a secret scheme. "All that this plea agreement shows is that Mr. Scanlon had a deliberate, secret and well-concealed scheme to defraud many people, and it appears, unfortunately, that Rep. Ney was one of the many people defrauded." [CQ Today, 11/25/05]	"I am honestly sick to death of false accusations, of people trying to impugn me and discredit my reputation…" Miller said. [Orange County Register, 2/1/07] According to the Pasadena Star News, "Miller said he acted as an anxious businessman trying to protect his investment and his right to develop his property - not as a powerful politician seeking to use his position for monetary gain, as he says he has been portrayed." [Pasadena Star News, 2/4/07]
Tactic #5: Tell the Republican Caucus it Just Isn't True	In May 2006, Ney addressed the Republican caucus, insisting on his innocence. According to a source close to Ney, "He is hoping to speak to the whole Conference [Wednesday] and make clear that if he believed for one second that there was any truth to these allegations, he wouldn't be standing before them and he wouldn't put his family through this," a source close to Ney said. "He recognizes the questions that are out there among his colleagues and he welcomes the opportunity to have them hear from him directly." [Roll Call, 5/10/06]	In February 2007, Miller appeared before the Republican Conference insisting on his innocence of ethical lapses involved in California land transactions. Even some his Republican colleagues noted the resemblance between Miller's speech and that made by Ney the year before. [Chicago Sun-Times, 2/11/07]

TWO GREAT PROGRESSIVES WON FEINGOLD'S PROGRESSIVE PATRIOTS VOTE: JOHN HALL & CAROL SHEA-PORTER

John Hall (D-NY) got the most votes and Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH) came in second. They were also my two favorites. And both can expect strong Republican challenges next year. Here's the note Russ sent out this morning:

With all the votes counted, I am proud to announce that the Progressive Patriots community has chosen Representative John Hall (NY-19) as our first 'Pick a Progressive Patriot' of 2007. Congressman Hall is a great progressive congressman and an important addition to the new Democratic majority. We are pleased to send a $5,000 contribution to his campaign and we're thrilled to welcome him to our growing list of "Progressive Patriots".
In addition to a financial contribution, Congressman Hall will be prominently featured on the front page of our website.
All of the other candidates made impressive showings and I'm pleased to announce that we'll also be making contributions to Representative Carol Shea-Porter (NH-01) and Representative Nancy Boyda (KS-02), the second and third place finishers in this round of voting.
'Pick a Progressive Patriot' is our way of letting you-- the progressive community-- decide who we should support with a financial contribution. Thanks to your generous support, we've been able to contribute to over 60 candidates through this program over the last year.
We took the first step towards a meaningful progressive majority in Congress last November and that was a credit to your hard work and determination-- but we won't stop now. We'll be holding more events like this throughout the year as well as looking for new creative ways to highlight great progressive candidates across the country.
If you have a suggestion for a candidate you think we should consider for future support please let us know by visiting our suggest a candidate section of our website.
Thanks to everyone who participated and congratulations to Congressman Hall.

MARK WARNER MULLING VIRGINIA SENATE SEAT? HUCKABEE GIVING UP ON HIS POINTLESS RUN FOR THE WHITE HOUSE TO GO FOR PRYOR'S SEAT?

I think Mark Warner is Hillary's first choice for running mate. In the unlikely event that she doesn't get the nomination, Warner would be a great running mate for Obama. Edwards or Gore would probably look elsewhere. Hillary could also go with New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson. Warner does have another very inviting career option open to him, the U.S. Senate. Today's Washington Post looks at the possibility of a Warner v Warner rematch next year.

Schumer, head of the DSCC, is the biggest proponent of Mark Warner, 52, jumping in against John Warner, 80. The two Warners are on friendly terms and John Warner is flirting with retirement. He's old and he's tired, losing some of his mental faculties and dismayed with the Neocons and extremists who have taken over so much of the Republican Party. If John Warner retires, Mark Warner, who had an 80% approval rating when he left the governor's mansion, has told friends he's in for sure.

"One Republican active in Virginia politics said that Warner has told U.S. Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.) to prepare to run if the senator decides against another bid. 'Davis is actively calling people and is saying on the calls that he has been told by Warner to get ready,' the source said." By current GOP standards Davis is considered a mainstream conservative, not a lunatic fanatic like, say Virgil Goode, who also harbors pretensions towards that senate seat and, of course who be the best bet for Democrats' ambitions to take it away from the Republicans.

While my pal Cliff Schecter weighs a Warner v Warner race and has come to some conclusions, there's another potential southern senate race looming, this one more ominously for the Democrats. This one would also pit a popular former governor against a sitting senator-- Arkansas' Mike Huckabee against Mark Pryor.


Huckabee's presidential campaign is a dead-end and Huckabee is probably the only Arkansas Republican who could credibly challenge the popular and conservative-leaning Pryor. Huckabee ran for the Senate in 1992 and lost but, of course, he's way better known and much better liked now. But Arkansas has been trending Democratic lately-- they hold all 7 constitutional offices and big majorities in the state legislature-- and Pryor would be tough for any Republican to beat, even Huckabee. One of the problems there is that the extremist religionist faction of the GOP controls the primaries but their candidates repulse normal people and even moderate Republicans have a hard time embracing them and their backward and hateful agenda.

U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE-- THE WORST GREED WHORES IN THE BUSH COALITION-- TARGET CONGRESSMEN FROM BOTH PARTIES WHO BACK WORKERS

Obviously most members of Congress who back Labor are Democrats. But the Chamber of Commerce is striking out viciously against members of both parties who they feel may vote for the union-backed Employee Free Choice Act. The bill would require employers to recognize organizing efforts in their workplace if a majority of workers sign cards in support of forming a union. Unions have made it clear that the legislation is needed because the current organizing process takes many years and is unfairly weighted, courtesy of Republican recipients of Big Business bribes, in favor of employers.

The Chamber is buying propaganda ads in 51 congressional districts. Their chief lobbyist, Bill Miller, widely considered one of the most sleazy and odious characters in Washington (almost a Cheney-like monster, and nearly as hated), growled in an interview that "We're making people feel pain. You cannot cross the Chamber and support big labor at any cost. The price is having thousands of dollars of radio run in your district." The fascistic Chamber is running their vicious and completely misleading ads against 29 Democrats and 22 Republicans.


The bill, which has over 230 co-sponsors in the House is a shoe-in but the Chamber is gearing up for a fight to the death in the Senate where it is expected reactionaries from both parties may be able to kill it. Miller warns that the Chamber's campaign when the bill reaches the Senate will "be even bigger and nastier." Among the congressmen targeted by the Chamber are Jerry McNerney (CA), Carol Shea-Porter (NH) as well as more conservative Democrats like Nancy Boyda (KS), Nick Lampson (TX), and Tim Mahoney (FL), and Republicans in moderate districts like Charles Dents (PA), Randy Kuhl (NY), and Tim Walberg (MI). The Chamber and the National Association of Manufacturers, another far right lobbyist organization, are threatening to campaign against any members who vote for the bill in '08.

With Republicans struggling to unite their far, far right-wing extremist faction with their plain right-wing faction, the Chambers' nasty attack is very bad news indeed. But any help we can get on Kuhl and Walberg, two congressmen unlikely to survive 2008, will be much-appreciated.

WHY CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG, MAHMOUD? BASHIR?

It takes a big man to admit he was wrong and rethink his position and do exactly what his critics asked him to do regardless of having once said he would refuse to consider it. When I was CEO of a company I used to look for people like that. But you have to be careful because the other kind of person who will demonstrate the same overt behavior is a weak and desperate person. And you don't want to have them around.

Through his Iraqi puppet-- some would say Quisling-- government, Bush has finally agreed to the diplomatic conference Democrats and the Iraq Study Group have been urging on him for some time. Today's Washington Post reports that Condoleeza expects to chair a "neighbors conference" with Iran, Syria and Iraq in April. Is she baking cookies and bringing sandwiches? (Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Turkey all have contiguous borders with Iraq. Are they coming too?)

"The violence occurring within the country has a decided impact on Iraq's neighbors," Rice told the Senate Appropriations Committee, which is considering the administration's nearly $100 billion request to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. "And Iraq's neighbors as well as the international community have a clear role to play in supporting the Iraqi government's effort to promote peace and national reconciliation within the country."

The Three Stooges Neither Bush, nor Cheney, nor Rice has agreed to direct talks with Iran (or Syria), presumably because they're assisting Iraqi insurgents, although that hasn't deterred the Three Stooges from non-stop talk with Saudi Arabia, by far the biggest supplier of the most deadly weapons to the insurgents in Iraq. In fact, it is estimated that at least 70% of American casualties in Iraq have Bush's Saudi business partner's paw prints on them.


There's been a lot made lately-- on both sides of the aisle-- about Rice's inadequacy for a job beyond what she was originally hired for (tutor for retardo-boy). She proves it every time she opens her mouth. She told whoever was paying attention to her silliness that al-Maliki "believes and President Bush and I agree that success in Iraq requires the positive support of Iraq's neighbors. This is one of the key findings, of course, of the Iraq Study Group and it is an important dimension that many in the Senate and in the Congress have brought to our attention." How many Americans-- and how many Iraqis-- have died since Bush dug in his heals and refused to pay any attention to this suggestions?

This Regime is simply so egregiously incompetent that they can't even make a go of putting on a good face anymore. Is it any wonder that today's ABC/Washington Post Poll shows us that only 35% of Americans feel they can "trust the Administration to honestly/accurately report intelligence about possible threats from other countries? That is very serious and Congress is flirting with malfeasance in not moving towards impeachment. A Gallup poll also came out today and only a fool would be surprised to see that 73% of respondents feel that leaders of other countries around the world do not respect Bush.

ECONOMIC WOES COULD TURN BUSH'S 28% APPROVAL INTO 20% AND LOSE THE REPUBLICANS ANOTHER 50 HOUSE SEATS

I know it's not Anna Nicole Smith but I don't understand why the media is ignoring a story that will impact people nearly as much as the death of this magnificent icon, a warning from Alan Greenspan that the U.S. economy may slip back into recession by the end of the year. Maybe people just can't conceive of things being any worse than they already are.


Today's stock market crash may help shake some people up a little. The New York Times reports that "stocks plunged in New York today after a sell-off in China rattled markets worldwide and surprisingly weak economic data fanned fears that the economy may be more vulnerable to a downturn than widely thought." The S&P 500 lost around 3.5% of it's value, it's biggest loss since 9/11-- and wiping it all of the gains made so far in 2007. Aside from instability in the Chinese market and a weak durable goods orders report here also hurt, as did nervousness over the possible economic impact of rising defaults among high-risk borrowers, known as sub-prime borrowers because their credit histories are often spotty.

Now if you live in Mississippi, you already know how things can get worse... a big storm, an incompetent government and an overly greedy, unregulated insurance industry. I remember seeing Democratic Congressman Gene Taylor on TV some months ago fit to be tied over the rip off policies of the insurance companies. You might not expect a reactionary, pro-business near-Republican like Taylor to give a crap about his constituents-- and you'd be correct-- but this time the insurance companies were messing with him personally. Like Trent Lott, first Katrina and then the insurance industry screwed with Taylor. Now, of course, they're trying to settle his case. But he's still pissed.

When it comes to substantive issues Taylor tends to vote with Republicans more than with Democrats. In a purer world, his voting record would mean an automatic expulsion from the Democratic caucus. (But the district is a safe Republican one, he votes with Dems more than any Republican does, his Republican replacement would be much worse, Bush won the district against Kerry with 68% of the vote...) Still, hard to get too worked up over the sufferings of Congressman Taylor at the hands of the insurance industry when you look at how he has abandoned Democratic values to help empower and enrich them-- at the expense of ordinary working people. I'm sure he's sorry now. Let's see if he can do anything about it.

According to a story in today's CongressDaily Taylor's bill-- which will be fought tooth and claw by the powerful Insurance lobby-- seeks to have the federal government's flood insurance program cover wind damages.

Taylor has sponsored legislation that would allow homeowners to obtain windstorm coverage under the National Flood Insurance Program in areas where the local government has adopted building standards designed to reduce wind damage. Taylor contends his bill would prevent problems that occurred after hurricanes Katrina and Rita struck the Gulf Coast in 2005, when many private insurers did not cover or only partially covered wind claims, arguing that the main damage was caused by a flood surge.

Taylor and many other coastal residents have sued their insurance companies, contending the winds damaged their homes before the flood surge... "Let the screen door hit them in the rear end. As bad as they treated south Mississippi, denying claims, kicking people while they were down," Taylor said of State Farm. Other insurance carriers have left coastal markets because of potential huge liabilities from another Katrina-like storm.

State governments are scrambling to solve the problem, with Florida last month passing legislation that creates a state reinsurance fund up to $32 billion so carriers can continue to operate. Taylor contends his bill takes a better approach, instead of trying to solve the insurance crisis state by state. "If they have gone from being a bad actor to a non-actor, then there is a place for the [federal] government to step in, just like government stepped in in the late '60s under the same circumstances because the private sector didn't want to have to cover floods anymore," Taylor said. "You had people at risk and our nation was in position to step in and help some people and spread the risk." Taylor noted that unlike the current flood program, rates under his bill would be actuarially based so the new program would be deficit neutral. "As a fiscal conservative, someone who believes in a balanced budget, I am perfectly comfortable in asking for this because we are not going to offer it unless it pays for itself," Taylor said.

The head lobbyists (bribers) for the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies and the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America, Justin Roth and Ben McKay, seem to be accusing Taylor, a longtime reactionary corporate whore, of being a commie. "Taylor said he was not surprised by the opposition from much of the industry, but hoped to create a coalition with real estate brokers, home builders and commercial businesses to generate support because all those segments are threatened by the lack of affordable homeowner and commercial property insurance." May the best lobbyist win?


UPDATE: TOMORROW MIGHT NOT BE THAT GREAT EITHER

My pal Bonddad is an expert on this kind of stuff. Take a look at what he had to say about today's melt-down. "The bottom line is the volume indicates everybody was looking for the door today. The breaking of trend lines indicates a reversal occurred, further confirmed by the huge volume totals. The SPYs are clearly moving lower. The QQQQs need to move through 43.5 or so and the IWNs need to move through 78.60 for there to be a real break. But given today's action, we could have further drops tomorrow."

WILL THE REAL RUDY GIULIANI PLEASE STAND UP-- SOONER OR LATER EVERYONE'S GOING TO KNOW EVERYTHING ANYWAY

The wingnuts who vote in Republican primaries know almost nothing about Rudy Giuliani. They certainly don't know he's a serial crossdresser and they are unsure of how he stands on even the issues most important to them. All they know is that he led his policemen on the raid that dislodged the Arab armies that invaded New York on 9-11 and he killed them all and saved South Carolina from the influx of Jews and Blacks and Puerto Ricans who would have fled New York to escape if Rudy hadn't acted so selflessly (while Bush was hiding under a desk and then flying around the country like a chicken without a head, although that must have been Bill Clinton). Other than that, no one knows anything about him north of 85th Street or south of northern New Jersey.

Today Neocon propagandist John Podhoretz-- accent on the middle syllable-- did a Rudy puff piece in Murdoch's New York Post. He explains Giuliani's popularity by identifying him as the hero who caused the piles of Arab bodies in the streets of New York after the Attack. "After all, how else can you explain a man with Giuliani's supposedly liberal social views possibly rise as high as he has-- besting John McCain among Republicans by as many as 22 points in one poll? Many on the right profess amazement at the lead he's opened up among Republican primary voters, considering his pro-choice views and sloppy personal life."

Podhoretz is much dumber than his father. I suppose it never dawned on him that the average Republican pollee is even dumber than he is. They don't know about Rudy's pro-choice/pro-gay/pro gun control/pro-undocumented work views or that he's a got a... how did he put it? A "sloppy personal life?"

The greed and selfishness wing of the GOP certainly likes Giuliani. And that explains why corporate whores like Bill Simon and Michael Boskin signed on to his campaign today (not to mention a whole gaggle of the sleaziest gambling industry crooks in Nevada who are raising him money next week: Roger Norman, Steve Wark, Mike Alonso, Randy Capurro, Glenn Carano, Ben Farahi, and John Sande). [WEDNESDAY MINI-UPDATE: MORE GAMBLERS FOR RUDY- Once it was announced Rudy would be in Reno taking money from the gambling industry, a whole slew of organized crime's most faithful servants in Nevada signed on to help: Bob Cashell (Reno), Geno Martini (Sparks), Bob Larkin (Washoe County), and State Senate Majority Leader Bill Raggio.]
But they like him because he's one of them; it's all about the Benjamins in that world and they don't care if he cheats on 2 wives at once-- and wears their dresses-- or what he says about any social issues one way or the other. They're just in it for that good old fashioned GOP Greed. Now, the base voters on the other hand...

Wait 'til they find out! According to a Diageo poll that came out today 64% of Americans disapprove of Bush's handling of Iraq. Giuliano isn't among them. Only 28% of voters say they are inclined to vote for a (generic) Republican for president in 2008. When you ask them the open-ended question, "Who would you most like to see elected president in 2008, it reads like this:
Hillary 18%
Obama 12%
Giuliani 8%
McCain 6%
Romney 4%
Edwards 3%
Lots of undecideds. And when you ask that question to Republicans, it reads like this:
Giuliani 17%
McCain 12%
Romney 7%
Hillary 4%
Obama 4%
Brownback 1%
Huckabee 1%
Tancredo 1%

And among Independents only Hillary and Obama are in double digits. Among all voters, only 28% describe Giuliani as pro-choice. The others don't know he is. They will. Only 26% know he supports Bush's Iraq policies. (A Zogby Poll also came out today, by the way. Only 23% of Americans say they approve of Bush's handling of the war in Iraq. That's going to be tough for all the Republicans to handle.)

I saw Giuliani making his "I'm in it" speech on a Larry King show. He came right out and said "I am pro-choice." That was on CNN. I'm assuming he says the same thing on Fox. I wonder if he actually does. That creepy Romney Breck Girl memo that was leaked today makes it clear that they're going after Giulani by painting him "as a one-dimensional Lone Ranger whose social views-- he supports abortion rights and civil unions for gay couples-- could destroy the 'GOP brand.' 'We can't disqualify Dems like Hillary on social issues ever again' if Giuliani is the nominee, the document states." Something tells me that if the need arises Democrats will be less kind.


UPDATE: WILL THE GOP REALLY NOMINATE A TRANSVESTITE?

Because Adam is so whacky with his photoshop skills I think a lot of DWT readers think we're joking about Rudy being a crossdresser. We're not. Jeff Feldman has the full story-- with video today. It's worth getting to know the man the Republicans want to run for president. Maybe Rudy and Hillary can compete for who looks best in an evening gown.

ROMNEY CAMPAIGN WORRIED HE'S THE REAL BRECK GIRL... AND A REAL FLIP FLOPPER-- THEY SAY THEY NEED TO FIX "BRAND ROMNEY"

The Boston Globe has gotten its hands on an internal Romney document that outlines, for campaign insiders, their candidate's shortcomings. It's a riot. "His hair looks too perfect, he's not a tough war time leader, and he has earned a reputation as 'Slick Dancing Mitt' or 'Flip-Flop Mitt'... The plan, which top Romney strategist Alex Castellanos helped to draft, charts a course for Romney to emerge as the nominee, but acknowledges that the 'the electorate is not where it needs to be for us to succeed.'" Damn those unruly electorates! If only everyone was a zombie or a Mormon or picked their presidents based on hair buoyancy!

The document claims the electorate isn't where it needs to be because they identify Romney with these words: "phony," "political opportunist," "Not a war leader, [lacks] strength of character, toughness," "rapacious Republican businessman." Gee, they know him better than most of us do.

Indeed, a page titled "Primal Code for Brand Romney" said that Romney should define himself as a foil to Bay State Democrats such as Senators Edward M. Kennedy and John Kerry and former governor Michael Dukakis. Romney should position himself as "the anti-Kerry," the presentation says. But elsewhere in the plan, it's clear that Romney and his aides are aware he's open to the same charge that helped derail Kerry's presidential campaign in 2004: that he is a flip-flopper who has changed positions out of political expediency.

They also go on and on about how to effectively attack McCain and Giuliani... but you can figure that out by reading Daily Kos or, for that matter, any right wing website.

THEY MISSED CHENEY-- A MORAL DILEMMA FOR ALL MEN OF GOOD FAITH

When I was just a child I used to wrestle with a moral dilemma. If I could go back in time to the very beginning of Hitler's chancellorship-- and knowing in the early 1930s what we know currently about what he and the Nazis were up to-- would I kill him? The fact that it would mean my own death was something I discounted entirely. Hitler was a man consumed with hatred and insanity who wielded immense power, power he used for destructiveness on a level rarely seen in history.

How does history judge Jan Kubis and Jozef Gabcik, respectively a Czech and a Slovak soldier, who assassinated Reinhard Heydrich on May 27, 1942. They didn't travel back in time to do it, but from Britain and with the blessing of the Czech government in exile. Heydrich was an SS-Obergruppenfuhrer, chief of Gestapo, one of the 2 or 3 main architects of the Holocaust, and the brutal Governor of Bohemia and Moravia (Czechoslovakia). He wasn't the vice president of Germany but at the time of his death Hitler considered him his political heir. Kubis and Gabcik ambushed him in his open car in a Prague suburb on his way to work. They were more successful than the Taliban suicide bomber was today.

What about Herschel Grynszpan? Ever heard of him? Probably not. He was a German-Polish Jew living in Paris in 1938 when Hitler started racheting up his plans for the extermination of European Jews. With an attitude towards Polish Jewish workers that sounds remarkably like Tom Tancredo's-- and many other Republicans'-- towards Mexican workers in the U.S., Hitler arrested and deported 17,000 Polish Jews living in Germany-- some for more than a decade-- on October 28, 1938. They were dumped at the German-Polish border and forced across. The Polish border guards forced them back. The repulsive and inhumane little drama went on for days in the freezing rain-- and with no food for the victims-- until the Poles finally threw them all in a concentration camp. Herschel Grynszpan's family were among them. Distraught, he went to the German Embassy in Paris to seek help for his family. He was dismissed by an embassy official, Ernst vom Rath. Grynszpan returned on November 7 and shot him.

Yesterday I was in my car when I heard that bad weather would force Cheney to postpone a meeting with the American puppet leader in Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai because neither Karzai nor Cheney could travel between the U.S. airbase where Cheney was holed up and Kabul, where Karazi was holed up, by road and the weather was unsafe for a helicopter. The radio newscaster said the U.S. Secret Service was having fits at the idea of Cheney spending the night in Afghanistan. I said a little prayer.

And then this morning I woke up to find that a Taliban suicide bomber attacked the entrance to the main U.S. military base in Afghanistan, killing up to 23 people and wounding 20 more. Cheney, unhurt, was moved to a bomb shelter.


Newsweek is reporting that Cheney has had a rough week. Seeking to be out of the country for the windup to the Libby trial, in which he has come out as the main villain and a classic traitor, who should himself be on trial, he's been hopscotching around the world causing problems wherever his plane pulled in.

Cheney was sitting in a heavily guarded room at Bagram Air Force base near Kabul when he heard the explosion. Sirens erupted around the base, and a loudspeaker announced an attack. Plumes of smoke rose in the distance. Cheney was escorted immediately to a bomb shelter by Secret Service agents. "I was sitting in my quarters when I heard a loud boom," Cheney recalled later to a small group of reporters accompanying him on his week-long trip to Asia. "Shortly after, Secret Service came in and said there had apparently been an attack on the main gate."

The deaths of vom Rath and Heydrich did nothing to slow Hitler down. What would have happened had the Taliban succeeded in killing Cheney is something we'll never know. America's fate is in the hands of Americans. We need to solve our own problems-- and fortunately we have a constitutional process in which to do that.


UPDATE: INSTEAD OF RUNNING ALL OVER THE WORLD MAKING TROUBLE, MAYBE CHENEY SHOULD HAVE STAYED HOME AND PAID ATTENTION TO WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE

Cheney should be paying attention to the Libby trial. Some day-- hopefully some day soon-- he may need to remember every word that was said. And there's more at home Cheney should be paying attention to, even beyond the polls that tell a story of a nation that has lost faith in it's leaders and their policies. For someone of my generation-- and Cheney's as well-- CBS' legendary longtime anchorman, Walter Cronkite, has a moral authority no one involved with the Bush Regime has ever come near. When he came back from Vietnam in 1968 and pronounced it "unwinnable" public opinion shifted against it and President Johnson was perceptive enough to have said, "If I've lost Cronkite, I've lost America."

The Bush Regime only listens to itself-- to the Tony Snowjobs, the O'Lielys, Hannitys, the Pat Robertsons, Ann Coulters and Michelle Malkins. If they were smart they'd pay attention to what Walter Cronkite is saying about their misadventure in Iraq:

"We should have gotten out a long time ago. This is a mistake, this entire war there, its a disaster. And the earlier we get out the better," Cronkite said. "It's a terrible disaster. Look at the loss of lives of our young Americans there and those who have been maimed for life, for what purpose? No purpose we can define."

What's more, he says, America will pay a future price for going into Iraq.

CBS 5 asked Cronkite if Americans were any safer because of the Iraq war?

"No, I don't think so. I think were probably less safe," he responded. "The entire Arab world has now put us down as an enemy. It's going to be a long time for us to take back any suggestion of friendship with those nations."

DEMOCRATS-- INSUFFICIENT RESOLVE? OR IS IT EVEN WORSE THAN THAT?

I'm not certain how many times the hacks in Washington who work for us have to be told we want them to end the war in Iraq before they do something about it. And I'm not even talking about the hopelessly deaf Republicans or Lieberman. Today's Washington Post acknowledges that a majority of Americans favor a deadline for troop withdrawal.

The Post-ABC poll found that 53 percent of Americans favored setting a deadline for troop withdrawals. Among those who favored a deadline, 24 percent said they would like to see U.S. forces out within six months and 21 percent called for the withdrawals to be completed within a year. The rest of those who supported a timetable said they do not support withdrawing all troops until at least a year from now.

This is the first time a Post-ABC News poll has found that a majority of Americans supported establishing such a timetable for withdrawal, which has long been resisted by the president and even some Democrats.

Growing numbers of Americans also favored withdrawing U.S. forces even if civil order in Iraq has not been restored. The poll found that 42 percent favored keeping troops there until order is reestablished, while 56 percent said the troops should be redeployed to avoid further U.S. casualties, even if the sectarian violence is continuing.

And while reactionary and pro-war Democrats like Rahm Emanuel and Steny Hoyer are working full time to sabotage Jack Murtha's efforts to come up with a solid plan to establish requirements for the training and resting of military units that would have the effect of limiting the number of troops available to send to Iraq, a full 58% of Americans approve of his approach. "Even some Americans, 21 percent, who supported the president's troop surge said they would favor rules for training and resting troops."

Two of the most perceptive bloggers I know, Matt Stoller and David Sirota, are as concerned as we are at DWT that there is insufficient resolve on the part of Democrats in Congress to end the war. I'm not basing my concerns on some poorly written story the AP put out over the wires today about a lack of support for Murtha. If you follow this blog, you know I've been writing about it for weeks and pointing out the culprits and their records of playing footsie with the Bush Regime. People like Emanuel, Hoyer, Berman, Tauscher, Schiff are all in solidly blue districts. They should be held accountable for the war.

Sirota's read of the AP piece is that it "tells the story of how Democrats in Washington clearly do not want to end the Iraq War. This story includes all of the tell-tale signs of both a party that disdains the will of voters and a media unwilling to report even the most basic facts: Nancy Pelosi reading Fox News talking points that claim conditioning funding on American troops' training is supposedly not supporting the troops; Harry Reid nonchalantly saying in the face of mounting casualties that there's no real urgency to do anything on the war because 'Iraq is going to be there;' and the AP writer refusing to acknowledge consistent public opinion polls by CNN and the Washinton Post that show the public strongly supports Congress cutting off funding for Bush's military escalation and conditioning funding on adequate troop training, respectively.  

Make no mistake about it: The renewed refusal by Democrats to use their majority in even the most basic way to stop the war is a declaration that the new majority is not close to using even the most basic powers afforded to it to stop or slow down the war. In other words, in backing off, the Democrats have just weeks after the 2006 anti-war election mandate effectively declared themselves as supportive of the Bush administration's stay-the-course policy-- a truly sickening act of cowardice."

YES, CONDI IS A MORON MASQUERADING AS AN INTELLECTUAL

I've been lecturing, occasionally, at Stanford for two decades. I never met Condolezza Rice when she was at the far right "think" tank there, the Hoover Institute, nor when she was Provost at Stanford for 6 years in the '90s. I've asked a lot of faculty members who did meet her what she was like. The most positive thing anyone has ever told me about her is that she was an OK piano player. Academically she was always a joke, someone who had managed to get through a series of third-rate schools because of a good memory and some charm but little with little ability for analysis or real comprehension. Bush's father hired her as a tutor for his learning-disabled son when they decided to run him for president (of the United States). The results are clearly displayed every time one turns on the TV or opens a newspaper.

You know how McCain mentioned the other day that Donald Rumsfeld would go down in history as the worst Secretary of Defense ever? He was too polite to say who is going down in history as the worst Secretary of State ever. (Hint: not Colin Powell or Madeleine Albright.) Tonight, however, Keith Olbermann was more forthright. John's got the video up at Crooks and Liars and it really is not to be missed. Anyone who is still wondering why our nation is held in so low esteem everywhere in the world no longer has to worry it was all done by Bush and Cheney. Olbermann points out that the incomprehensible drivel she was spouting yesterday on Fox-- and John's got that up too-- was so retarded that "if it had been included in a remedial history paper at the weakest high school in the nation, would've gotten the writer an "F"-- maybe an expulsion... The Secretary's resume reads that she has a Masters' Degree and a Ph.D in Political Science. The interviewer should have demanded to see them, on the spot." Watch the video.

Then read Glenn Greenwald's overview of the Iraq tragedy about another rank Bush Regime operative, the ever more odious Joe Lieberman. And if you're still managing to hold your last meal down, try Dan Froomkin's explanation of who let the dog out to run and bother people in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Meanwhile Americans overwhelmingly favor Jack Murtha's bill to block Bush's escalation while the entire Republican caucus and more than a few reactionary Democrats led by Rahm Emanuel and Steny Hoyer, are determined to scuttle it and continue Bush's war agenda.


UPDATE: EVEN RICHARD PERLE POINTS OUT SHE'S INCOMPETENT

And if anyone has experience with incompetence... Anyway in a longwinded, self-serving interview today with some far right propaganda outlet, the loathsome warmonger and Neocon, Richard Perle goes out of his way to name all the disastrous choices Bush has made personnel-wise. And who's the first one out of his mouth: Condi-- "way in over her head."

CNN PREPARES TO END IT'S 24-7 ANNA NICOLE SMITH PROGRAMMING

If you've watched CNN in the past few weeks (months?... it seems like years), you are probably aware that they have become "Your All Anna Nicole Smith All The Time Station." Probably someone is telling them they may lose serious viewers to Fox...... MSNBC... ABC... video games. So in an effort to wean their audience, now accustomed to hearing about nothing but the sordid, meaningless details of Anna Nicole Smith's pointless life, back into the realm of serious news, CNN has contacted each presidential candidate to ask them a question CNN viewers will have no trouble relating to: "What is your favorite color movie?


Wisely, Obama seems to always refuse to get drawn into this demeaning nonsense. Giuliani, however, surprised everyone by naming neither Glen or Glenda, White Chicks, La Cage Aux Folles, The Rocky Horror Picture Show, Victor/Victoria, Osama, Tootsie nor Hedwig and the Angry Inch but instead naming the more traditionally costumed Godfather (which suits another aspect of his personality).

Mitt Romney passed on Big Love and A Home AT the End of the World in favor of the more (traditional) family-friendly Raiders of the Lost Ark. Oddly enough McCain picked a 1952 film-- when he was a mere boy of 40-- called Viva Zapata which people currently interpret as an allegorical slam against the corruption and tyranny of the Bush Regime. (That naughty McCain!)

John Edwards' choice, Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb, probably isn't going to inspire much confidence. And Hillary's and Bill Richardson's picks seem carefully chosen to avoid any controversy, respectively Casablanca and Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid.

Way on the far edge of the political universe, Duncan Hunter and Newt Gingrich were disqualified when they came to blows over who had chosen Leni Riefenstahl's Triumph of the Will first.

WILL BUSH'S APPEARANCE IN LOUISVILLE BE ANOTHER NAIL IN THE OLD KENTUCKY HOMO'S POLITICAL COFFIN?

Bush's popularity rating in Kentucky is dismal (37%)-- but that hasn't stopped Mitch "His Bitch" McConnell (52% approval) from inviting him to Louisville for a fundraiser next week at the Seelbach Hotel. "The kind of people who go to these things," one Kentucky political observer explained to us, "are pretty well-heeled. They love Bush for the tax breaks. Most working and middle class people in Kentucky have felt the pinch of Bush's crappy economic policies. The ones who have gotten richer and richer are the ones who support him and McConnell. And it doesn't matter to them that most people in the state are opposed to their war policies."

"I am thrilled he accepted my invitation," oozed Kentucky closet case and senior Senator McConnell. "It's always an honor to have the president in Kentucky." Apparently he's hoping that the demonstrators who don't feel quite as honored, will make a bad enough impression-- and, let's face it, that is easily manipulatable, especially by the practiced propaganda artists at Fox-- on the TV audience.

With more and more Kentucky voters starting to question McConnell's disgraceful role in bolstering the Bush Regime war agenda that they do not support, Democrats are starting to show interest in a race that Inside-the-Beltway pundits are still considering a lock for McConnell. "If it starts getting out to the rural and suburban voters that he's a closet case and that all his anti-gay rhetoric was just a cover up for his hypocrisy, he'll be finished in this state," a Lexington reporter-- who won't report that he already knows McConnell is a gay blade-- told us ("off the record"). The same reporter tells us he expects prominent and respected Kentucky businessman Charlie Owen to enter the race soon.


UPDATE: BETTY BOWERS MAKES SOME SENSE OUT OF McCONNELL'S INVITATION TO BUSH

After all, the Seelbach is fabulous, absolutely fabulous-- just like our Bushie.


UPDATE: THE WEDNESDAY BITCH-WATCH

And I thought Boehner was the most out of touch congressional leader in history! McConnell apparently doesn't know nothin' about nothin'. The Moonie Times had some questions for him and all he could say is that he doesn't know-- and they weren't like the kind of questions DWT would ask him either. From today's Hotline: "Asked about a new poll showing most Americans want troops withdrawn from Iraq: 'I didn't see the poll.' Asked about the suicide bombing said to have targeted VP Cheney: 'Well, I think the fact that there was a bomb that went off in Afghanistan is not something that hasn't-- it was in Afghanistan, right?' Told yes: 'It's happened before. It's dangerous there.' Asked about 'an agreement the Iraqi government reached on oil revenue': 'Has it been reached?' Told yes, and then asked more about it: 'I haven't-- yeah, I haven't seen it, so I really don't know what the details are. Sorry.' Finally, asked about the decision to involve the U.S. in talks with Iran and Syria: 'Yeah, I really haven't focused on it yet.'" Of course, given what was available who else could teh Republicans in the Senate have chosen to lead them? Charlie's gonna make mincemeat out of this loon if he runs.

WHY AREN'T JERRY LEWIS AND DUNCAN HUNTER IN PRISON WITH THEIR PARTNER RANDY "DUKE" CUNNINGHAM? ASK BUSH, ROVE AND GONZALES

I can't remember how many years have gone by since I started asking how come the mass media never brings up the $400,000 bribe Thomas Kontogiannis paid George Bush through then Republican Congressman/bagman Randy "Duke" Cunningham for a presidential pardon. Oh, it does get mentioned now and then... but like in the 22nd paragraph on the second page of a story buried in the back of the paper. And somehow CNN misses it entirely. Well, after all, bribing the president-- even an illegitimate one like Bush-- is nothing compared to the clownish wrangling over the rotting corpse of an ex-stripper who lost and gained weight a few times.

So it didn't surprise me at all that today's editorial in the New York Times about why U.S. Attorney Carol Lam was fired doesn't mention Kontogiannis-- or even corrupt Republican congressional bribetakers Jerry Lewis or Duncan Hunter.

Carol Lam, the former United States attorney for San Diego, is smart and tireless and was very good at her job. Her investigation of Representative Randy Cunningham resulted in a guilty plea for taking more than $2 million in bribes from defense contractors and a sentence of more than eight years. Two weeks ago, she indicted Kyle Dustin Foggo, the former No. 3 official in the C.I.A. The defense-contracting scandal she pursued so vigorously could yet drag in other politicians.

In many Justice Departments, her record would have won her awards, and perhaps a promotion to a top post in Washington. In the Bush Justice Department, it got her fired.

Ms. Lam is one of at least seven United States attorneys fired recently under questionable circumstances. The Justice Department is claiming that Ms. Lam and other well-regarded prosecutors like John McKay of Seattle, David Iglesias of New Mexico, Daniel Bogden of Nevada and Paul Charlton of Arizona — who all received strong job evaluations — performed inadequately.

The Times piece today offers a tantalizing hint that should be investigated thoroughly once Republican criminals are dislodged from the levers of governmental power: "Ms. Lam had already put one powerful Republican congressman in jail and was investigating other powerful politicians. The Justice Department, unpersuasively, claims that it was unhappy about Ms. Lam’s failure to bring more immigration cases. Meanwhile, Ms. Lam has been replaced with an interim prosecutor whose résumé shows almost no criminal law experience, but includes her membership in the Federalist Society, a conservative legal group."

Until then Jerry Lewis, Duncan Hunter, John Doolittle, Virgil Goode, Ken Calvert, Gary Miller and George W. Bush will all be able to breathe a lot easier.

QUOTE OF THE DAY: BUSINESS AS USUAL FOR K STREET LOBBYISTS IN A CONGRESS RUN BY CORPORATE WHORES HOYER & EMANUEL. MEET CLIFF STEARNS (R-FL)

"This is (lawmakers') best opportunity to have hands-on experience with these products that they are regulating."
-Michael Petricone, a lobbyist for the Consumer Electronics Association, after having been exposed for paying for a nice trip to Vegas for Congressman and Mrs. Cliff Stearns (R-FL). And Stearns' spokesman, Paul Flusche backed him up, saying the trip was "an educational experience" that helps Rep. Stearns "do his job better."

Never mind about wife Joan; let's just look into Congressman Stearn's job (aside from upholding the law of the land that had just passed prohibiting these kinds of bribes from lobbyists-- which, of course, he voted against). Stearns is the ranking Republican on the committee overseeing trade and consumer protection. Here's his abysmal voting record on consumer protection. In short, he's into protecting corporations and screwing consumers. And as long as we're examining voting records, let;s have a look at how Congressman Stearns has voted on Congressional Ethics. Well, he certainly is consistent. He has a perfect score: zero. He always votes against congressmen being held accountable for their ethical misconduct. This guy is a total scumbag.
In November Stearns was returned to Congress by 60% of the voters of central Florida's 6th congressional district, a smaller margin than usual. He raised close to a million dollars, has well over $2 million on hand and got most of his donations from business groups' PACs on whose legislation he has been voting (in favor of their interests).

Just so you don't think I'm picking on the corrupt Stearns because he's a Republican, I should mention that there are some Democrats just as almost as corrupt as Republicans. Take reactionary Minnesota scumbag Collin Peterson for example.

Rep. Collin Peterson, D-Minn., chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, took an overnight trip last month paid for by the American Farm Bureau, according to a report Peterson filed with the House. The bureau paid the $1,800 tab for him to speak at its annual meeting.

"There's nothing unethical about the trip," said Mary Kay Thatcher, the bureau's public policy director. "It's not like we took him to Hawaii and kept him there for five days."

Peterson did not respond to interview requests.

No, I wouldn't think so. But if he does, we'll do a follow-up Quote of the Day.

YES, CHUCK HAGEL IS BETTER THAN BUSH OR McCAIN-- BUT HE'S FAR WORSE THAN EVEN THE MOST REACTIONARY DEMOCRAT

Before any progressive decides to jump on the Chuck Hagel for President bandwagon, I suggest they look at the man's long career in public office. Let's start with his voting record. The DMI looked at his votes on issues affecting the lives of the middle class and found he has a perfect score-- a perfect F, a zero. He never waivers; he always votes the extreme right wing line; always. Whether you're talking about legislation that favors corporations over workers and consumers, legislation to save destroy the environment, backing Bush's agenda of shifting the burdens of taxation away from the wealthy and onto the middle class, destroying women's right to choice (or even to acquire contraceptives), or undermining workers and restricting labor unions, Hagel is consistent and unwavering; no one is worse in the entire U.S. Senate. His scores on all these issues are perfect zeroes.

Oh, but you like him because he's been speaking out on Iraq. OK, fair enough; I do too. His voting record, on the other hand, tells a different story. You don't like Hillary Clinton's Iraq War voting record? (Neither do I.) Hagel's is infinitely worse. Two weeks ago he voted with Bush and Cheney to prohibit even the nonbinding resolution to come up for a vote! Before that he had, of course, voted with Bush and Cheney on all 6 of the roll calls on October 10 and 11, 2002 to authorize the use of force against Iraq (and, in Cheney's mind, the known universe). Beyond that, Hagel voted with the Bush Regime 25 times out of the 29 times Iraq War matters came before the Senate between October, 2002 and May, 2005. He does talk a good game, I'll give you that. (By the way, for the sake of comparison, Clinton voted the Bush Regime line 7 times on those same 29 roll calls.)

Today's USA Today has a puff piece touting Hagel as an antiwar unity candidate, who might run with a Democrat. The only Democrat whose record is in sync with his own, Ben Nelson (the most Republican Democrat by far) is constitutionally ineligible, since the president and vice-president can't be from the same state (unless, of course they are Bush and Cheney and the Constitution is just a meaningless piece of paper).

"He said that if he ran he would seek the Republican nomination. Yet he's also talking up Unity08. That's a plan by a bipartisan group of political operatives to draft a bipartisan presidential ticket on the Internet and offer voters an alternative to the Democratic and Republican candidates next year." One can only imagine the collection of reactionary monstrosities in that bipartisan group: the Liebermen, Nelsons, and Landrieus joined with a clutch of rubber stamp Republicans frightened of their state's voters. A perfect way to continue reactionary governance even with massive defections from the Republican Party everywhere in the country (except Utah, if you recognize that benighted place as part of the country).

"If I decide to get into this, I would run not just to make a statement," said Hagel last week. "I think it's a very intriguing enterprise," when asked about the Unity08 schtik, recognizing the general voter dissatisfaction with the two corporately-owned Money Parties (of which Hagel is, and has always been, a member in good standing).

The USA Today article, through shear ignorance and laziness, I suspect, then goes on to whitewash Hagels' Iraq War record, as though he voted with the Bush Regime once and has opposed them ever since. The writer, Kathy Kiely, should lose her journalism license. Oh... they don't have licenses? That explains it.

Despite his own stated misgivings, Hagel voted with 76 other senators in October 2002 to give Bush the authority to go to war in Iraq. He said he did so after being assured by the president and his advisers that "he was going to use that leverage to get the diplomatic effort on track."

Since then, Hagel has become a prominent critic of Bush's policies in Iraq and the Middle East generally. This culminated in an impassioned speech last month in a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing when he challenged his colleagues to take a stand on a resolution he co-sponsored disapproving of the president's planned troop increase in Iraq. "If you wanted a safe job, go sell shoes," he said.

And his voting record? It takes less than 60 seconds to find. I'd suggest a rewrite of the first sentence in the second paragraph to reflect reality, rather than hype and spin. Does USA Today care about reality? It's only the most important issue facing our country today. It's not like I'm even asking the newspaper to go back and investigate how Hagel pioneered electronic voter fraud when he first ran for election in what turned out to be a dress rehearsal for Bush's seizure of the U.S. government. Anyway, after you're finished wrapping your fish or lining your birdcage, you might want to read the GQ story and take a closer look at some of the research I pointed out at the links.

CAN AN OSCAR WINNER BE PRESIDENT? I PRAY TO GOD THE ANSWER IS YES-- IMAGINE A PRESIDENT WE COULD BE PROUD OF INSTEAD OF THE TURD WE HAVE NOW?

Former vice presidents... what ever happens to them? They play golf and stage hissy fits at John Mellencamp concerts like Dan Quayle? Not Al Gore. He's accomplished more since he left office than when he was in it-- and now he's being heralded as a "rock star" and the "coolest ex-vice president. Almost everyone I know who talks about who they support for president has the same qualifier... "unless Al Gore runs."

DWT endorsed him in 2005 and 2006; this will be our 2007 endorsement. We hearby endorse the only American ex-vice president to win an Oscar (and soon to win a Nobel Peace Prize). My guess is that with the exception of al-Qaida-- who will do anything to keep the Republicans in power-- the entire world is rooting for Gore to win the Nobel Prize and the presidency. Will he run?

Al didn't only win the Oscar tonight because every sane person on the planet wants him to be president. Did you see the movie he made? It kicks ass. "An Inconvenient Truth," is basically Al giving an hour and a half slide show about global warming. It's the third-highest-grossing documentary ever, with a worldwide box office of $45 million, right behind blockbusters "Fahrenheit 9/11" and "March of the Penguins."

"He is more popular now than he ever was in office, and he knows it," says Laurie David, one of the producers of "Inconvenient Truth" and a Hollywood environmental activist (and wife of "Seinfeld" co-creator Larry David) who has traveled around the world promoting the film with Gore. "He's a superhero now."

Everyone I know, inside politics and outside, wants Al to run for president. Imagine someone like him who we've come to admire and trust as a human being, someone concerned with the welfare of our planet, instead of... some beady-eyed triangulator who has one thing going for her: better than a Republican. According to a recent story in the Boston Globe "Gore could raise large amounts of money very quickly based on his record and name recognition, and his statements about the 2008 race haven't foreclosed the possibility of reconsidering at a later date. Several observers, including supporters and detractors, say they could envision a political drama in which the current candidates become sullied over the Iraq war and liberal voters call for Gore to enter the race."

If tonight's Oscar doesn't do it, the Nobel Peace Prize should.
The fear and hatred from the extremists and neo-fascists is so hysterical that it is clear that Gore is what they are most afraid of. And for good reason. There are half a dozen Draft Al websites (like this one and this one) and, unlike Democratic pols such as Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden, he has a long and clear record of opposing Bush's attack on Iraq. "In 2002, Gore roundly denounced plans for an invasion at a time when few Democrats did so, saying in one of many speeches attacking the war, 'The chaos in the aftermath of a military victory in Iraq could easily pose a far greater danger to the United States than we presently have from Saddam' [Hussein]."

Despite what George Clooney said when introducing the nominees for Best Supporting Actress, I think Al will run, will win and will help us save ourselves from the catastrophe that ensued when the presidency he won in 2000 was stolen from him. The world is ready for Al Gore.

CAN DEMOCRATS UNITE BEHIND A PLAN TO END BUSH'S WAR? DO THEY WANT TO? DEPENDS WHAT YOU MEAN BY "THEY"

If my career path depended on electing generic "Democrats" to office, then that's what I'd care about, I guess. But the idea of electing anyone under the ill-defined rubric "Democrat" isn't something that should be reflexively embraced by thoughtful progressives. Before I explain why, let me refute my own argument a bit. In the extreme western tip of North Carolina, centered around Asheville, the 11th congressional district had long been home to one of the most reactionary and corrupt politicians in the entire United States, Charlie Taylor. In November 54% of the votes in the district (123,986) went to Heath Shuler, an anti-choice, anti-gun control, anti-gay conservative under the Democratic umbrella. Forget for a moment that even if my suspicions are correct and Shuler-- who immediately upon election joined both the DLC-oriented pro-corporate New Democratic Coalition and the reactionary Blue Dog caucus-- winds up voting with Republican-lite southern Democrats like Jim Marshall (GA), John Barrow (GA), Gene Taylor (MS), Dan Boren (OK), Bud Cramer (AL) and Mike McIntyre (NC), he will be voting substantially better than even the most progressive Republican. Forget that because my point is even more important: just by having been elected as a "Democrat"-- regardless of how pathetic and how reactionary a Democrat, and regardless of how damaging he is to the Democratic "brand" (more on that below)-- Shuler was an automatic vote for Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House.

That acknowledged, let's move to the single most important issue facing our nation right now: Bush's occupation of Iraq and the moronic and catastrophic war he is waging against Islam. Most American military experts and most American voters think Bush's course is dead wrong and they want him to change course. He absolutely refuses. In November, voters made their wishes known by defeating more than enough Bush rubber stamp congressmen and senators to give majorities in both chambers to Democrats. Steadfast anti-war progressives like John Hall (NY), Jerry McNerney (CA), Steve Cohen (TN), Carol Shea-Porter (NH), Keith Ellison (MN), John Yarmuth (KY), Joe Sestak (PA), Patrick Murphy (PA), Yvette Clarke (NY), Dave Loebsack (IA), Mazie Hirono (HI), Peter Welch (VT) were elected in the House while in the Senate wild-eyed radicals and warmongers like George Macacawitz Allen (VA), James Talent (MO), Mike DeWine (OH) and Conrad Burns (MT) were replaced by sensible opponents of Bush's Iraq policies (respectively, Jim Webb, Claire McCaskill, Sherrod Brown and John Tester). Not one single Democratic incumbent was defeated in either the House or Senate and not a single open Democratic seat was won by a Republican. The election was a stinging rebuke for the Bush Regime in general and for their universally-hated Iraq policies in particular.

It is the American people, not their representatives in Congress, who are leading the effort to stop Bush. Professional politicians are rarely-- I didn't want to say "never," because there are always the rare exceptions; but they are indeed rare-- lead; they figure out which way the wind is blowing and run to the head of the parade-- after it looks safe enough. That said, there are a considerable number of Democrats sincerely convinced that the Bush Regime policies are dragging our country to disaster and they really do want to stop the war.

So what's holding up the ship? That brings us back to fake Democrats, like Heath Shuler. This morning both the New York Times and the Washington Post reports on the problems Jack Murtha (and Nancy Pelosi) are having in uniting the whole Democratic caucus behind plans to stop the war. According to the Post "The plan was bold: By tying President Bush's $100 billion war request to strict standards of troop safety and readiness, Democrats believed they could grab hold of Iraq war policy while forcing Republicans to defend sending troops into battle without the necessary training or equipment. But a botched launch by the plan's author, Rep. John P. Murtha (Pa), has united Republicans and divided Democrats, sending the latter back to the drawing board just a week before scheduled legislative action, a score of House Democratic lawmakers said last week."

We'll discuss the role of Pelosi's own devious and treacherous leadership team-- undercover pro-war fanatics Steny Hoyer and Rahm Emanuel-- in a moment. First let's look at the dependably reactionary Democrats who tend to vote with Bush anyway. The very first example in the Post of a Democrat parroting Karl Rove's pro-war talking points is, predictably, Jim Matheson of Utah. Although the Post merely identifies Matheson as "a Democrat," even the most superficial look at his voting record on Iraq tells a story the Post might have considered sharing with its readers. The House voted 44 times between the fateful Oct 10, 2002 votes to authorize Bush to invade Iraq and the May 25, 2005 bill to authorize more military activities. Matheson voted with the Republicans and against the Democrats on each of the 4 October 10th roll calls to authorize the attack on Iraq. Of the 44 roll calls Matheson voted with the Republicans 21 times, a disgraceful record matched by a mere 8 Democrats, two of whom-- Jack Murtha and Ike Skelton-- have now, unlike Matheson and the others, realized their trust in Bush was severely misplaced.

While Murtha and Skelton are trying to solve the problem, Blue Dog Democrats of the Matheson ilk are pandering to the far right: "If this is going to be legislation that's crafted in such a way that holds back resources from our troops, that is a non-starter, an absolute non-starter." Matheson knows better than to insinuate that Jack Murtha, the military;s best friend in Congress, would endanger our troops and "hold back resources" from them. But Matheson and the Blue Dogs are so accustomed to bending over for Bush and Cheney that they automatically pick up on the White House directed/Fox propagated rhetoric meant to confuse and deceive the public. "Matheson and other Blue Dogs said the Democrats should concentrate on oversight hearings on Iraq policy, while refraining from binding legislation on the war." That would suit Bush and Cheney just fine.


Murtha will take his plan to the Democratic House leadership on Wednesday where Emanuel and Hoyer will do all in their power to undermine him and wreck his approach. The Times points out that "the ideas Mr. Murtha has floated over the past month-- attaching restrictions to the financing, and requiring the Pentagon to meet clear standards on readiness, training and equipment for troops about to be deployed to Iraq-- have already drawn substantial criticism. Mr. Murtha has argued that his approach both protects American forces and makes Mr. Bush’s troop buildup plan impossible to sustain." Hoyer and Emanuel, who did all they could to prevent the nomination of anti-war Democrats in last year's primaries, while pushing Republican-lite Dems like Shuler and Tim Mahoney, represent a significant number of Democrats who are as enthusiastic about destroying Iraq (and Iran and Syria) as are Bush, Cheney and the Neocons.

The largest single caucus among House Democrats-- in fact among all members of Congress-- is the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Alas, it is far from the most effective. More freshmen joined the reactionary Blue Dogs and New Democratic Coalition caucuses this year than the Progressives. The new freshmen members are Yvette Clarke (NY), Steve Cohen (TN), Keith Ellison (MN), John Hall (NY), Mazie Hirono (HI), Hank Johnson (GA), Dave Loebsack (IA), and Peter Welch (VT). Nancy Pelosi left when she became Speaker and two prominent members, Sherrod Brown and Bernie Sanders were elected to the Senate. Unlike the two reactionary Democratic caucuses, the CPC wants to end Bush's war in Iraq. Many of these people have embraced Murtha's On-the-Road-to-Damascus-like change of heart and are trusting him to get us out of Iraq. But not everyone.

Murtha's strategy is viewed warily by some progressives and by many reactionaries and by the otherwise liberal warmongers. Hoyer and Emanuel feel certain they can exploit these divisions to keep the Congress from taking any meaningful action against Bush's Iraq agenda.


UPDATE: SIROTA MANAGES TO MAKES SENSE OUT OF ALL THIS MESS

David Sirota takes Jonathan Weisman and Lyndsey Layton, the team who wrote the Post article I was quoting above, to task out to the woodshed for poor journalism. You have to get through 14 paragraphs of all their blather before there's any substance offered regarding Murtha's Iraq proposal. Why are so many vested interests against us getting out of Iraq. The Bush Regime (of course), almost the entire Republican caucus in Congress, and all the most reactionary and warmongering Democrats have jumped all over him. Some right wing activists have been demanding he be tried for treason. Well, this is what the traitor had to say:

"To be sent to battle, troops would have to have had a year's rest between combat tours. Soldiers in Iraq could not have their tours extended beyond a year there. And the Pentagon's 'stop-loss' policy, which prevents some officers from leaving the military when their service obligations are up, would end. Troops would have to be trained in counterinsurgency and urban warfare and be sent overseas with the equipment they used in training."

Is there something wrong with Murtha's proposal? I mean I can understand why people who hate the troops and hate America might be against it but why are Democrats and the media buying into this nonsense? Murtha, a decorated ex-Marine, has been the best friend the military has had in Congress for decades. He's always stood up for their interests-- always. Now suddenly the media is listening to the spin from chicken hawks like Karl Rove, Dick Cheney and George Bush|? The support these people have offered the military is on display at Walter Reed.


UPDATE: REGARDLESS OF EMANUEL, HOYER AND THE GOP, MOST AMERICANS SUPPORT MURTHA'S SUPPORT FOR REAL LIVE AMERICAN SOLDIERS IN IRAQ

Huff and puff all they went, the Inside the Beltway Establishment hasn't fooled the American public this time. We know Murtha's plan is the right thing to do. Sit on that Steny Hoyer and John Boehner-- and spin. Although the Washington Post somehow neglects to mention it in their anti-Murtha propaganda barrage, it's their own polling that shows these results:

Would you support or oppose Congress trying to block Bush’s plan by creating new rules on troop training and rest time that would limit the number of troops available for duty in Iraq?
Support: 58 percent
Oppose: 39 percent
Unknown: 4 percent

SEYMOUR HERSH, GEORGE BUSH AND HULAGU KHAN

In the fall of 1969 I hurried over the forbidding passes and trackless wastes-- well, there were tracks, just no roads-- of Eastern Turkey on my way to Tabriz in northwest Iran. Even if there are roads now, the absolute nonsense in today's Haaretz is as unlikely as anything else emanating from the Bush Regime propaganda machines. "NATO leaders are urging Turkey to open its airspace for an attack on Iran as well and to also open its airports and borders in case of a ground attack." Because even if there are roads, where is Bush going to get the soldiers to attack over them? From Fiji, Latvia, Guatemala and that hot air balloon Cheney has been sitting out the Libby trial with?

This absurd report, apparently meant to frighten someone in Iran-- although I can't imagine who-- claims that Qatar, Oman and the United Arab Emirates have given Israel a green light to overfly their territory on the way to bomb Iran. Iranians know what a map of the region looks like better than Bush and there's an awful lot of Jordan and Saudi Arabia between Israel and Qatar, Oman and the United Arab Emirates, none of whose governments would survive their own peoples' fury if this silliness was true.

Seymour Hersh sounds a lot more credible to me than Haaretz. His appearance on CNN and his article, The Redirection, in this week's New Yorker indicates that the latest hideous and inhumane goal of Bush Regime foreign policy in the Middle East is to recreate the civil war they sparked in Iraq all over the region, the goal of which is to... well that should be obvious to anyone paying attention. The goal of the Bush Regime is to utterly and violently destroy anything and everything they perceive as a potential threat to American corporate hegemony.

We got our first hint when Rumsfeld presided-- very matter-of-factly, if not overtly jovially-- over the looting of Baghdad, without a doubt a war crime. "Oops, shit happens," is not a valid defense and if there is Justice in the world Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice, Bush and rest will be tried and dealt with appropriately. As the "reconstruction" billions went straight into the pockets of the Bush Regime's most notorious cronies and political financiers, Iraq's civil society was turned into the worst catastrophe that country has suffered since Hulagu Khan's Mongols sacked Baghdad in the middle of the 13th Century. Like Cheney, Hulagu Khan also considered the innocent civilians "collateral damage." And like Bush's unprovoked attack, Hulagu Khan's caused the deaths of at least a quarter million civilians. In the wake of the Mongols-- and in the wake of the Bush Regime-- mosques, palaces, museums, libraries, and hospitals were looted and destroyed. Hulagu Khan ordered the Caliph and his sons killed, as did Bush with Saddam and his sons and both tyrants turned Shi'a against Sunni to help them destroy the country.

Bush is more than happy to assist his family's tyrannical Sunni business partners preserve their corrupt, tottering monarchies and crush Shi'a aspirations in the process. But for the Neocons in the Bush Regime this is about sending a message... to Korea, China, Russia, Pakistan... anyone who would dare challenge American hegemony: Resist us and we will slaughter your people and devastate your nation.

NOT FOR YOUR ENTERTAINMENT AND VIEWING PLEASURE

-By Mags

I have taken lately to talking back to my television set. I am not sure how long this can last. I do not live by myself, although I spend a great deal of time alone. Lately I have read some stories about how, as Nixon started circling the drain, he started talking to the portraits in the White House. I am not sure this is the same, but still... I worry.

Months ago on C-span I watched a panel discussion about the blogosphere. The participants were doing a whole bunch of hand wringing over the reliability of the information in the blogosphere. Oh my, what will people do if they rely on someone other than us to inform them? How will they ever achieve balance?

Tony Snow, David Gregory, and Richard Wolfe had a little fun at the expense of the blogosphere the other day. Washington insiders never tire of yucking it up over the foolish idealism of bloggers. We just don’t know how the game is played. For them this is a source of amusement, that is, when it is not scaring the bejesus out of them.

That newspapers are losing readership is common knowledge these days. Layoffs from major publications around the country are the stuff of news articles on the net and one would think within those very publications which find themselves making the cuts. (But, don’t worry, the economy is strong.)

Balance, it seems, is a word bandied about by the media, paper and electronic. Few achieve it, but even if they did, balance is not what we crave right now, at least not me. I crave instead INFORMATION. That thing that Tony Snow, David Gregory, and Richard Wolfe insisted they offered us by way of their medium... the one they call journalism.

Now, that Bush’s lies about WMD are public, and the Libby trial has exposed the misdeeds of the White House in outing a CIA agent whose job it was to investigate WMD, the mainstream press pretends that it is doing its job by reporting on these matters. They might be. But, bloggers have been discussing Libby for a long time. And, I defy Snow, Gregory, or Wolfe to tell me that the information is not important, or that it rates up there with Brit's hair shear in hard newsworthiness.


What happened in this country in 2000 and 2001 is that the media was complicit in the theft of the highest office in the land. The MSM fawned over the newly powerful boy child of the corrupt and very rich Bush clan and they can barely shake themselves from continuing to do so even today. And, we all know that the only reason they feel safe to report the truth now is that Bush and Cheney’s poll numbers are so dismal that there is no worry of retribution, not any more.

When the MSM failed to report the stolen election, the grassroots sprang into action. When network news failed to connect the dots, web sites like Buzzflash and Democrats.com decided to take up the slack. Others were added, Firedoglake, The Daily Kos, Talking Points Memo,DWT, just to name a few. When no public officials, and when no MSM media would discuss the election, the internet took on that fight. I remember those early days back in 2001. At first it was a matter of discussions on discussion boards, but the movement to tell the truth of Florida 2000 grew quickly. Those of us who knew exactly what would be the pattern of a Bush reign began pounding on keys and making waves.

For many on the left, what Bush and Cheney have wrought was predictable. But, the Washington insider structure is old and secure. They say that people who work together will do what they need to do to get along rather than make waves, no matter what moral issues are at stake. Nowhere is that principle more visible than in Washington, DC. It is my guess that the members of the Congress and the Senate have more in common with each other than they do with their constituents. Once the newly elected hit the streets of DC the rules change for them. They are part of the system. They are no longer just John Q Public. The fresh idealism becomes inconvenient, problematic in their new environment.

The same looks to be true for journalists. Their desire and professional need to get along with Tony Snow upstages the need to get real answers for the reading and viewing public. Perhaps they think that the American public cannot digest the facts... or maybe they want to be sure we do not try to do so without the DC spin, the happy talk. Bloggers are painted with a broad brush as inexpert, and single minded, mean spirited. We do not play the game. We do not follow the rules. We do not go along to get along.

The blogosphere is a threat to the establishment, not because it is inexpert or mean spirited, but it is a danger because it does not play the game and will not follow the "rules." The blogosphere is largely a service. It is a gap filled by those willing to ask the tough questions, by those who love the real America and not the K Street replication of it. The blogosphere answers to the real people, not the perceived public, the one Tony Snow holds in his mind as he obfuscates and misdirects. The blogosphere is the tide against the old boys club. It is the tide against pretense. It is the raw struggle of people against corporatism and the state of perpetual war. The blogosphere is us, it is the people. It may yet become part of an established order at which time it too will have to fight for its moral soul, but right now it is us. It IS America fighting to remain American.

What David Gregory and Richard Wolfe and any member of the Inside-the-Beltway or the mainstream media need to remember is this-- Tony Snow is a lost cause no matter how it shakes out-- the American public with whom their networks court favor are bloggers or readers of blogs. We watch and listen because we are involved and because we know the truth. Fox News network is losing viewers because they fail to heed the turning of the tide, because they misread the majority of the people, because they fail to understand that if you cannot tell the truth to us, we find a way to get at the truth, and tell the truth to ourselves. The massive public is not quick to move, but move it will. When the gaps in the established institutions get too large, the people will fill those gaps themselves. We will find a way to function outside of that establishment. And, so we have.

If nothing else, the MSM ought to be praising those with the courage to blog. The blogosphere made it safe for the MSM to come out of hiding, no matter how timid and tepid that emergence proves to be.

The established order must determine whether to beat it or join it when dealing with the blogosphere. The formal journalists can be the first to tell the truth, or it can remain a Johnny come lately when offering the public commentary on current issues. MSNBC might be breaking new ground on network news by actually reporting the news, but it is not news by any stretch of the imagination for bloggers who have been offering up these items for years. What we have here is the MSM finally coming out of hiding as the poll numbers for Bush make it safe for them to report. The bloggers waited for no such occasion, but helped to create it.

Americans have watched the game for a long time. We know it is a game and we know it is a show for our benefit. We know that the insiders play by unseen rules. We know it, and finally there is a technology that allows us to discuss how much we abhor this gamesmanship, this insider corruption of the American way of life and America itself. No amount of public chiding or denigration will change that.


The news media and the public face of government can evolve or die. It is their choice to make. They can take the lead of the American people or they can continue their game. But, what they cannot do is make the illusion they intend to create with their public personas real. They can denigrate the blogosphere, but they cannot change the fact that we are investigating and exposing. They cannot change the fact that blogs are out-reporting them. Blogs are fact checking and establishing relationships with inside sources. Bloggers are crashing the gates. The panel discussions featuring the hand wringing of insiders are nothing more than fits of sibling rivalry as the new kid enters the circle. Bloggers will hold their feet to the fire. Bloggers will not make journalists less accountable to the truth, but more so. At this juncture, it is difficult to imagine a wayward MSM that no longer has to give way to information already being shared privately by the public. But, before the blogosphere that is what we had. No longer can the MSM independently frame the questions and the debate.

I don’t know about you, but more and more I turn off the reporting I see on television and opt for reading the truth instead. I opt for more on the topics that are important and are of interest to me than to watch hours on end of commentators hand picked by the MSM for me to hear. Yes, I talk back to my television. But, more and more I turn it off. The voices coming from it are irresponsible and illogical. They are voices of the established order bought and paid for with corporate money. They are not rocking the boat. They are gingerly sidestepping the truth and soft pedaling the issues that have lasting consequences for us all.

The great hope of the world is the spread of truth and the ideology of peace. The blogosphere could be the means. People telling people, people connecting with people and people working with people, who could be the means to a world much closer to peace and egalitarian prosperity than what corporatists and establishment hacks wish to see.

We are the kind of folks who talk back to our television sets because we can no longer stand idly by and listen to the irrational voices coming from that box trying to justify war, oppression and inequality. We have listened to the MSM babbling on for way too long.

The lid is off the box. It is too late to put it back on now. We will keep asking the questions. We will keep searching for data to measure accountability and we will talk until we are all blue in the face. The blogosphere is the voice of America, the voice of the world’s people. The blogosphere will not play the game. We are not the establishment. We do not want to be the establishment. We will not be a vehicle for entertainment only. We do not exist to hypnotize the masses or for their viewing pleasure.

WHAT AILS THE REPUBLICANS? WHERE DOES ONE START? WELL... WITH FRANK LUNTZ OF COURSE

Most of the consultants in DC are terminally brain dead. That would include all of the Inside-the-Beltway Democrats and many of the Republicans. But not all of the Republicans. That's because when Republican consultants give bad advise and make their candidates lose elections, they have to look for a different line of work. Democratic losers get more money and power... always. Frank Luntz is much smarter than any Inside the Beltway Democratic consultant (but so is my neighbor's dog Sergeant-- and this is a sweet but really dumb dog). A few weeks ago Luntz spoke to Rolling Stone about Al Gore and made a lot more sense than the Democrats who were interviewed.

GOP consultant Luntz, a lot sharper than Democratic consultants of his generation, points out that "Democratic voters in 2008 are not only looking to turn back the last eight years, but to erase the last eight years. If I were working for Gore, I'd message around a single word: Imagine. 'Imagine if I'd been president instead of George W. Bush. Imagine where we'd be today.'"

Unfortunately, Democratic Inside-the-Beltway consultants only talk about billable tv ad rates and which restaurants are best to dine at. Today's Washington Post features a column's worth of free advice to the GOP from the currently out-of-favor Luntz. (Boehner-head, who hates hearing anything that causes ripples, doesn't want any bad tasting medicine no matter how sick the patient and he's banned Luntz from GOP councils.) And it's more bad-tasting medicine.

Republicans in Congress cannot regain their majority merely by relying on a coalition of traditional conservatives and evangelicals. They must reach out to what I call "the fed-ups" -- a large and growing constituency of independent voters who have held the balance of power in every election since 1992, and will hold it again in 2008...

How incredible that the antidote to what ails the Republicans can be found in the words of a famous Democrat. In his tragic run for the presidency in 1968, Sen. Robert F. Kennedy said, "Some men see things as they are and say, 'Why?' I dream of things that never were and say, 'Why not?' " The magnificent poetry of that challenge -- to do more and to do better -- is at the core of who we are as a society, what we want for America and for ourselves. Here is the reason why the Republican Party has faded from relevance in the past two years.

Despite its many problems, the United States remains a nation of dreamers. The American psyche is genetically wired to see possibilities. Faith in the future is in our DNA. It's why we historically vote for the more positive, hopeful, upbeat candidates.

Yet my recent public opinion research has recorded unprecedented anxiety about the country's direction. Just 34 percent of the voting public believe that the America of tomorrow will be better than the America of today, while 57 percent think it will be worse.

This explains why so many people have lost patience with the current U.S. leadership. It is no wonder that 52 percent of voters in my election night survey said they were "mad as hell" about politics and politicians. Can you blame them? It doesn't matter whether you are a Republican or a Democrat, the outlook is grim: a war with no end in sight, rising costs of health care, borders that are poorly patrolled, schools that are failing, manufacturing that is disappearing, and a culture that is coarsening.

Boehner and his team don't want to hear from Luntz that for swing voters Republicans represent the politics of hypocrisy and failure. Their rubber stamp congressional caucuses have no message and no agenda-- other than to stay in power and to feast at the public trough. So nearly 40 of them went down to defeat, including two right-wing ex-superstars who were being talked up as presidential timber (before the election): Rick Santorum and George Macacawitz Allen. What Boehner and the congressional Republicans do want to hear is more of what Luntz says is making them gravely ill.

It is unfortunate that the Republican Party is currently dominated by hyperpartisan, gut-punching professional politicians and expert technicians whom I wouldn't want to face at the dark end of the electoral alley. They specialize in the flawless execution of "wedge" politics. That may have worked well in past elections, but no longer. The latest gimmick is "branding" -- a Madison Avenue technique -- to reverse the Republican slide. But political parties are not brands, slogans are not a replacement for ideas and you don't sell leaders the way you sell widgets.

Many rank-and-file Republicans agree. But the party apparatus still doesn't get it. Over the years, I have become unpopular with the GOP hierarchy by telling the apparatchiks what they needed to know, not what they wanted to hear. Nowadays my work is far from the day-to-day grind of political partisanship. But if I were still in the thick of it, my guidance would be just 20 words long: Be bold, return to basics, stop telling, start asking, focus on results, abolish "earmarks" and embrace a permanent balanced budget.

It's too late for the Republicans to take that advice and expect anyone to believe them. And there's a lot of wisdom in it-- or in some of it-- that will work for Democrats. In fact, it looks like Nancy Pelosi had already been hard at work on some of those 20 words, doesn't it? And what did Republicans do when Speaker Pelosi and "Democrats began pushing through their 'Six for '06' proposals in the first 100 hours? They called a news conference not to present counter-proposals to guide the minority over the next two years, but to complain that the Democrats were treating them unfairly. They objected that the committee process was being skirted and members were denied opportunities to offer amendments... They were upset over who was or was not allowed to offer amendments on the floor. (Note to Republicans: Americans don't care.)"

Luntz writes that his current polling-- always the best in the business-- "show that Democrats now hold a perceived advantage with voters not just on reducing deficits and balancing the budget but on an issue long seen as a GOP strength: ending wasteful spending." His solution for them is very proactive-- and against their nature. "Step one should be the abolition of earmarks for hometown and home-state projects. Nothing will undermine the lobbyist culture more than a clear and definitive statement that there will never again be a highway project like the Alaskan 'bridge to nowhere.' Step two is to once again stand for accountability, a principle abandoned in the last Congress."

Right now the Republican Party is thoroughly associated with corruption, venality and war, war and more war. A report in today's Times of London claims that American generals are threatening to resign if Bush goes along with Cheney's demands to attack Iran. Meanwhile the Bush Regime is once again trying to cover up their failure to capture or kill Osama bin-Laden by saying it isn't important. That doesn't resonate with the voters; not even a little. Many Americans, especially the one prone to authoritarianism-- Bush's base-- were willing to dociley give up their freedoms and privacy because they believed what Bush said about bin-Laden and they were sucked in by his dead or alive bravado. Now they're hearing "I don't know that it's all that important, frankly." Uh... no. Someone is going to start repeating-- and people will start paying attention to-- what Benjamin Franklin famously said at the tumultuous birth of our nation: "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." That could be engraved on the tombstone of the GOP for quite a few election cycles.

SECRETIVE FAR RIGHT REPUBLICAN FACTION OFFERS GOP NOMINATION TO MARK SANFORD

I sure hope all DWT visitors are reading-- or have read or will read-- Joe Conason's spectacular new book, It Can Happen Here. It's one of those rare books I have to ration so that I don't finish it too fast. It reads like a how-to manual for dealing with the criminality of the Bush Regime. In fact, I keep a sheet of paper in it so that I can jot down the names of the worst characters Conason brings up. In Column A I write the names of the most egregious criminals and traitors who need to be dealt with most severely. Column B is for people who should get life in prison. Column C is for lesser crooks, etc. Many of them are commonly known monstrosities, like Cheney and Bush and Rumsfeld but there are also the ones I only knew a bit about, people like John Yoo, Michael Ledeen and Laurence Silberman, and then there are the secret toilers that have been unleashed on us, people like Viet Dinh, Abram Shulsky, John Rendon...

Even worse is the umbrella organization for the vast right wing conspiracy, the uber-secretive Council for National Policy (CNP), the heart and soul of today's Republican Party. The CNP’s bylaws forbid members from publicly disclosing its membership or activities, but tomorrow's New York Times has a splashy story about the organization in which Grover Norquist and Richard Viguerie participants agreed to discuss a recent secret meeting on Amelia Island, Florida on the condition of anonymity.

The story itself, by David Kirkpatrick, deals with the old saw about how the extreme right is unhappy with the candidates running for the Republican presidential nomination. (DWT has published a dozen pieces on it already-- here, here, here, here, and here for example.) But Kirkpatrick has written about these vicious dangerous fascists before for the Times and he is eager to shine the light they so disdain on them. "The Council for National Policy was founded 25 years ago by the Rev. Tim LaHaye as a forum for conservative Christians to strategize about turning the country to the right. Its secrecy was intended to insulate the group from what its members considered the liberal bias of the news media. In recent years the group has brought together a cross-section of the right from Edwin J. Feulner to Wayne LaPierre of the National Rifle Association."

A group of influential Christian conservatives and their allies emerged from a private meeting at a Florida resort this month dissatisfied with the Republican presidential field and uncertain where to turn.

The event was a meeting of the Council for National Policy, a secretive club whose few hundred members include Dr. James C. Dobson of Focus on the Family, the Rev. Jerry Falwell of Liberty University and Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform. Although little known outside the conservative movement, the council has become a pivotal stop for Republican presidential primary hopefuls, including George W. Bush on the eve of his 1999 primary campaign.

But in a stark shift from the group’s influence under President Bush, the group risks relegation to the margins. Many of the conservatives who attended the event, held at the beginning of the month at the Ritz-Carlton on Amelia Island, Fla., said they were dismayed at the absence of a champion to carry their banner in the next election.

And it isn't just the universally hated-- well universally hated in that whacky universe-- McCain, Giuliani and Romney, who worry them. The general feeling among the right-wing fanatics is that neither Huckabee nor Brownback nor Hunter has what it takes either. Well... in Hunter's case there's the little matter of an impending indictment stemming from the Duke Cunningham bribery convictions. But even worse, his hysterical anti-immigrant stand, which so pleases the nuts on the religionist right, freaks out the nuts from the Greed and Selfishness wing, the ones who fund the GOP and demand, above all else-- other than no taxes for the wealthy-- cheap labor. "'There is great anxiety,' said Paul Weyrich, chairman of the Free Congress Foundation and an elder statesman of the conservative movement. 'There is no outstanding conservative, and they are all looking for that.'"

Apparently the favorite at the meeting was Rick Santorum, the embodiment of the greed and corruption favored by the money wing and of the hypocrisy and bigotry beloved by the religionist loons. But Santorum's devastating and overwhelming defeat pretty much ended his electoral career on the spot. His speech was about going to war against Muslims, a favorite them of the convention. That worked for Hunter too.


Still, right-wing maniac Gary Bauer summed it up for many when he said “Right now there is still a vacuum among conservative Republicans. [Conservatives] "want a more provable conservative who also is demonstrating that they can put together the resources necessary to prevail." One person who thinks a deal can be worked out is far right lobbyist and Abramoff bagman, Grover Norquist, who still has a lot of clout in rightist circles. He says he's still open to Huckabee, Hunter, Romney and Brownback. "He argued that with the right promises, any of the four could redeem themselves in the eyes of the conservative movement despite their past records, just as some high school students take abstinence pledges even after having had sex. 'It’s called secondary virginity,' Mr. Norquist said. 'It is a big movement in high school and also available for politicians.'"

It's not big in any of the high schools where I live. You?

BOB NEY FINALLY MOVING INTO HIS NEW HOME-- A DORM ROOM IN THE FEDERAL PEN IN WEST VIRGINIA. SAVE A BUNK FOR JERRY LEWIS AND JOHN DOOLITTLE

Call me bloodthirsty but in 5 days I'd be poppin' a champagne bottle if I was a drinking man. That's because far right Republican and ex-congressman Bob Ney gets deposited in his prison cell on Thursday. Although I think a 30 month sentence for his bribery conviction is a tiny fraction of what he should get, I'm glad to see that he will get at least some prison time before Bush pardons him and the rest of the gang of congressional corruption on his way out the door.

Ney will be surrendering himself to the federal penitentiary in Morgantown, West Virginia on March 1, where he'll be sharing dorm style accommodations with bunk beds for 12 fellow inmates. He gets a personal locker for his possessions and I guess he can keep his wig in it. I haven't been able to find out if the wig is considered "drag" and that makes him eligible for the gay wing of the prison. In any case, his accommodations at the pen will be considerably different from what Jack Abramoff and other bribers and lobbyists have helped him become accustomed to. This will be nothing like that nice St Andrews Golf Resort he became so fond of.

And those nice Inside-the-Beltway restaurants lobbyists were always taking Ney too... Fellow inmates will serve meals, which Ney gets to eat while seated at a four-person table in the prison cafeteria. He'll be required to work 7-1/2 hours each day, something he's never done in his entire miserable life. His assignments won't include breaking rocks but he'll be doing food service, custodial work, landscaping, and "education services." Because he blames drugs and booze for his criminality Ney gets to spend half of his designated work hours in the prison's substance-abuse program.


UPDATE: TRAITORS ONLY GET 30 MONTHS IN PRISON IF THEY'RE REPUBLICANS?

Paul Kiel at TPM Muckraker just went thru the documents relating to the charges against ex-Ney and Hastert staffer Will Heaton. He's sharing the details of life with the crooked Republican heavyweight. Heaton admits accepting bribes from Abramoff and others seeking to enrich themselves at the public trough via the corrupt GOP congressional leadership. There's plenty worth reading but my favorite part goes to what I was saying about Ney getting off too easy. He should have been tried as a traitor, for one starters.

Ney and Heaton both pled guilty to accepting thousands of dollars in gambling chips from a man only identified as the "Foreign Businessman" in the documents. That's the Syrian-born businessman Fouad al-Zayat (known as "The Fat Man" in the London casinos), who flew Ney and two of his staffers over to London for a high-flying night at a casino. Why? al-Zayat had a company that was seeking to sell U.S.-made airplanes and airplane parts to Iran, and he wanted Ney to get an exemption to U.S. laws that ban the sale of such parts to Iran.

BLUE AMERICA-- STEVE COHEN: THE KIND OF FRESHMAN CONGRESSMAN WE CAN ALL BE PROUD OF

In the last election cycle we concentrated on progressive Democrats challenging Republican rubber stamp incumbents. We missed meeting some excellent candidates who were seeking to replace retiring Democrats, like Keith Ellison in Minneapolis and Yvette Clarke in Brooklyn. Today Blue America is very proud to welcome the newly elected congressman from Memphis to firedoglake, Steve Cohen.

I don't have to explain to anyone how important it was to replace reactionary Republicans like Dick Pombo and Curt Weldon with progressive Democrats like Jerry McNerney and Joe Sestak. And it isn't too much of a stretch to realize how equally crucial it is to replace reactionary and corrupt Liebermanlike "Money Party" Democrats with progressive "People Party" Democrats. That's what happened in Memphis. Harold Ford, Jr., a DLC hack, the scion of the uber-corrupt Ford Machine, decided the next step in his smarmy career was to run for the U.S. Senate. There was a 15-way primary for the seat and then a 3-man race in the general (including Harold's brother Jake) and Steve Cohen, who had served much of the district as an outspoken progressive in the State Senate, won overwhelmingly with 60% of the vote.

The district is 60% African American-- something that the Ford brothers' daddy, Harold Senior, boss of the Memphis Machine, tried to turn into an issue-- but Cohen, a white Jewish liberal, won decisively among both Blacks and whites. Where Ford was always a very conservative Democrat, eager to showboat on TV as a so-called "moderate," while stuffing corporate money into his coffers, Steve Cohen campaigned on crucial real life issues important to the constituents of the 9th CD, Tennessee's most Democratic district (where Bush barely managed to get 30% of the vote against Kerry).

When many of the freshmen we supported were scurrying to join the Blue Dogs and New Democratic Coalition after the election, Congressman Cohen immediately joined the Congressional Progressive Caucus. And while many Democrats who campaigned on an anti-war platform have been satisfied to just go along with Hoyer and Emanuel on the symbolic nonbinding nonsense, Cohen has co-sponsored genuine end-the-war legilslation (the binding kind) that would not just stop Bush's escalation but would actually start bringing our troops home. He is a co-sponsor of bills by Representatives Murtha, Farr, Woolsey, McGovern, Kucinich and Nadler, all of which go much further towards ending the war than the Democratic Bush-enablers feel comfortable with.

"In November, Americans clearly voiced their opposition to the President's course in Iraq," explains Steve. "As freshmen members of Congress who campaigned on the need to reconsider the course our country is taking in Iraq, we thought it was appropriate to deliver that message again to the President. The President's State of the Union Speech indicated that he has turned a deaf ear to the American people. We are urging him to abandon his plan to escalate the war and begin to bring our troops home."

As a state senator, Steve fought for 20 years to establish the state lottery which has funded college scholarships for thousands of needy students. He was beloved and respected by his constituents for his leadership abilities and for the proven results he has always brought. He campaigned to end the war and to divert Bush's ass-backwards priorities into the needs of his working and middle class constituents. Today he's a congressman who is a picture perfect example of someone who is living up to all of his campaign promises, not just in terms of Iraq but also in terms of trying innovative and positive solutions to the crime problems that are plaguing the citizens of Memphis. A member of the Judiciary Committee, he's working with Charlie Rangel on a first offenders' bill that focuses on recovery instead of revenge and he's a strong and effective advocate for civil liberties and civil rights, as well as an outspoken enthusiast for the fairness doctrine and net neutrality.

Please join me in showing some netroots appreciation for Congressman Cohen living up to his campaign promises and in helping him arm himself without having to depend of corporate contributors. (You don't have to go further than today's Washington Post to see the danger Democratic representatives are in when they find themselves... Inside-the-Beltway.) Steve's a big music fan-- as you'd expect someone representing Memphis to be-- and the first dozen contributors today will get ESSENTIAL DONOVAN cds.


UPDATE: STEVE IS PART OF THE SOLUTION. IS YOUR CONGRESSMAN?

Steve has signed the pledge.

THERE SHE GOES AGAIN-- THE OLD KENTUCKY HOMO ONLY KNOWS HOW TO DO ONE THING: OBSTRUCT, OBSTRUCT, OBSTRUCT

No matter that most of his constituents want him to help stop Bush's escalation and work towards getting the U.S. out of Iraq, Mitch McConnell only takes his marching orders from Cheney. and Cheney wants more war. So Mitch, his bitch, wants more war too. Yesterday he hissed at Democrats that their "effort to repeal the 2002 Iraq war resolution would meet the same fate as two previous efforts to limit President Bush's authority: blocked by procedural obstacles, unless Democrats relent to GOP terms."

The Democrats want to "replace the broad authority that Congress granted Bush in October 2002 with a narrower mandate establishing a March 31, 2008, goal for withdrawing combat troops. It also would restrict longer-term engagement in Iraq to a handful of high-priority realms, including counterterrorism, training for Iraqi troops and border security." Apparently Tony Snow spent the day with John Boehner in his tanning booth and the Bush Regime used another flack to come up with a pack of nonsense for the press-- like Bush can't withdraw from Iraq because of the UN.

I'm not that worried about the prowess of the intuitively devious McConnell-- a practiced liar from his years and years of living as a closet case/homophobe-- but I am worried about the ineptness of the Democratic team working on this: proven incompetents like Biden, Levin and Reid. If they couldn't even get a vote on a nonbinding resolution written by Republicans and supported by half a dozen of them, how are they going to get this through when there are probably no Republicans who will support it and probably a Democrat or two who will balk?

Meanwhile, when he isn't picking fights with the Speaker of the House, a very clearly delusional Cheney is insisting that Iraq is a gigantic series of success stories. The man is demented and is leading this country over a cliff. Between delusional and out of touch, untreated psychotics like Cheney and Bush and an array of bizarre closeted Republicans (like McConnell, Mehlman and McCrery) running the GOP-- and afraid of being exposed and thrown to the yahoos on the religionist right-- our government is in deep doo-doo.


UPDATE: OH, AND SPEAKING OF GOP CLOSET CASES... HERE'S ONE WHO REALLY TAKES THE CAKE

I have no way of knowing if McConnell was ever intimate with right wing lunatic Rev. Lonnie W. Latham but they both have a lot in common. Both are pathological liars, spewing hatred towards gay people while seducing other males and pretending to be heterosexual. McConnell and Latham are both mentally ill. Latham, like Republican Congressman Tom Foley, has been apprehended and exposed. McConnell is still hiding in his closet, still refering to his so-called "wife," also a Bush Regime operative, as his roommate.

A former Baptist church leader and GOP agent, Latham was a noisy anti-gay maniac at a time when he was hiring male prostitutes. He has now resigned as pastor of the South Tulsa Baptist Church and from the executive committee of the Southern Baptist Convention. He "had supported a resolution calling on gays and lesbians to reject their 'sinful, destructive lifestyle' before his Jan. 3, 2006, arrest outside the Habana Inn in Oklahoma City." You ever notice that the louder these right-wingers scream about gays, the more likely they are to be diddling around with young boys? When Latham was arrested he was offering an undercover policeman a blowjob.

"His attorney, Mack Martin, filed a motion to have the misdemeanor lewdness charge thrown out, saying the Supreme Court ruled in the 2003 decision Lawrence v. Texas that it was not illegal for consenting adults to engage in private homosexual acts. 'Now, my client's being prosecuted basically for having offered to engage in such an act, which basically makes it a crime to ask someone to do something that's legal,' Martin said." Be honest now; have you ever met a right winger whose basic essence was something other than hypocrisy?

AH... NOW I UNDERSTAND WHY JACKSON BROWNE AND REP STEVE COHEN HAVE A MUTUAL ADMIRATION CLUB

Saturday at 2PM (EST) Blue America welcomes freshman congressman Steve Cohen for a chat at Firedoglake. We were especially impressed by Steve because unlike some Democrats who campaigned against Bush's Iraq war and then were satisfied just voting for the nonbinding symbolic resolution, he is outspoken in really trying to stop the escalation and end the war. Congressman Cohen is already co-sponsoring 4 bills and 2 resolutions-- all binding ones that would do just that. Obviously a congressman from Memphis, Tennessee is going to be a big music fan. We asked Steve to suggest a song he'd like to suggest people listen to. He had a whole list but finally picked "Lives in the Balance" by Jackson Browne who did a campaign fundraiser for him last year. Please consider contributing to Steve's re-election fund. It's way better if he gets his funds from grassroots Democrats than from corporations looking for a quid pro quo, don't you think?

HAS THE GOP COME UP WITH SOMEONE EVEN CRAZIER THAN MEAN JEAN SCHMIDT? MEET MICHELE BACHMANN (R-MN)

There are probably a lot of moderate Minnesotans kicking themselves for electing one of the most radical and insane members of Congress in November. Michele Bachmann is probably too radical for Texas or Utah. She makes no sense at all in the moderate suburbs north of Minneapolis. Although the crazed religionist fanatic and right-wing kook only managed to garner a bare 50% of the vote a third-party candidate siphoned off enough votes, almost 27,000, to prevent a nice, normal moderate Democrat, Patty Wetterling from winning the 6th CD's open seat.

Ever since she was elected, Bachmann has been embarrassing her constituents with her bizarre and irrational behavior, even uncomfortably clinging on to Bush as he tried to squirm out of her grasp at the State of the Union speech. But today she really took the cake for congressional lunacy, descending into a place usually reserved for the likes of the Mean Jean Schmidts and Curt Weldons.

The Star Tribune is reporting that Bachmann claims she knows of a secret plan to divide up Iraq. Some rational people think dividing up Iraq isn't that bad an idea-- but not the way Bachmann is talking about. Obviously high on something-- she's a cult member of some nutty group that claims the Pope is the anti-Christ-- she claims she's already seen a map for partitioning Iraq "in which Iran will control half the country and set it up as a 'terrorist safe haven zone' and a staging area for attacks around the Middle east and on the United States." Can you imagine if you had a representative going on like this?

After she got back to her office and sobered up her staff explained that she sounded a little rough around the edges and asked her to back off a bit from the wild claims and bizarre fantasies. An astute friend of mine in Minneapolis explained that "Ms. Bachmann is absolutely batshit fricking loco" and that she'd probably be a one-termer.

DOOLITTLE FINALLY GETS SOMETHING RIGHT-- SLAMS McCAIN, GIULIANI AND ROMNEY

How desperate do you have to be to solicit an endorsement from someone as extreme, corrupt and moronic as Alaska's Don Young? Well, with the Republican front-runners gobbling up all the so-called "respectable" endorsements-- at least in the whacky world of Republican congressmen-- Mike Huckabee accepted one from Don Young, the Bridge to Nowhere nutcase who is still staunchly standing by the made up right-wing quote "by" Abe Lincoln last week, nonsense about hanging congressmen who oppose the president. Huckabee and Young have gone shooting ducks together.

Huckabee managed to find another congressman to endorse him, radical right Arkansas Wal-Mart Representative John Boozeman.

Meanwhile, still unindicted and still under investigation by the FBI, John Doolittle (R-CA) was more candid and on the money (for a change) than most of his rightist colleagues. "Well, it's the weakest field of candidates on the Republican side in my lifetime... None of them would be a Ronald Reagan Republican." Doolittle particularly hates McCain, who investigated his friend and benefactor Jack Abramoff, an investigation that will in all likelihood lead to imprisonment on corruption charges for Doolittle. Like most Mormon legislators Doolittle is expected to eventually buckle under and work for the election of fellow Mormon Mitt Romney.

ACCORDING TO JEWISH LAW, I'M JEWISH BECAUSE MY MOM WAS-- AND LIKE MOST JEWS I OPPOSE BUSH'S WAR ON IRAQ

I was mortified when all-- not some, all-- the L.A. area Jewish Democrats voted for Bush's illegal attack on Iraq back in October, 2002. Some, particularly Howard Berman and Adam Schiff, have been consistent supporters of the Bush Regime's hideous policies there. There have been 44 roll call votes regarding Iraq in the House between October, 2002 and May, 2005. Howard Berman, an old line "liberal" hack from the San Fernando Valley who seems to believe he represents Israel's far right Likud Party rather than the thoroughly anti-war Southern California Democrats who he's supposed to be working for, has voted with the Republicans 17 times, one of the most reactionary records of any Democrat. Adam Schiff, a disgraceful Blue Dog who represents the equally safe Democratic seat in Glendale/Pasadena was nearly as bad, voting with the Republicans a dozen times. Most L.A. area Democrats voted with the Democrats and not, like Berman and Schiff, with Republican warmongers Tom DeLay, Roy Blunt, John Boehner and John Doolittle.

I was even sadder when Henry Waxman, purported to be the smartest congressional Democrat from California also tossed his lot in with the reactionaries to support Bush's war in Iraq (albeit less frequently than the 2 above; 8 times.) I thought it was a black mark against American Jews to have these representatives abandon progressives and go over to the Dark Side in the single most important issue in the past decade. It turns out the vast majority of American Jews are not putting Likud interests before America's.

How do I know? Gallup took a poll-- actually 13 polls during 2005-07 measuring religious affiliation and support for Bush's war policies. Jewish Americans came out as the most progressive. Of the course of the 13 surveys, 52% of all Americans concluded invading Iraq was a mistake (and 46% thought it was the correct thing to do). The only religious group supporting Bush's insane and catastrophic policies were, predictably, the Mormons (who are fielding their own insane candidate for president, Mitt Romney who plans to stay the course in Iraq). 72% of the Mormons support the war and only 27% realize it was a tragic mistake. Among Jews 77% realize the war was a mistake and only 21% think it was the right move. Protestants are basically evenly split and 53% of Catholics see the war as a mistake.

Among Jewish Democrats, a full 89% see the invasion as a mistake. (Among non-Jewish Democrats the war is seen as a mistake by 78% and even among Jews who are not Democrats 65% see the war as a mistake. So who exactly do Berman and Schiff think they are representing when they support Bush's policies on Iraq? Eric Cantor, one of the half dozen most reactionary members of Congress across the board on everything, is a Jewish Republican from Virginia who would probably have been not just a kapo under Hitler, but a kapo organizer.

Even many Israeli Jews have long understood that Bush, Cheney, Lieberman and the Neocons were pushing policies that put Israel in mortal danger, policies embraced only by far right, mentally unbalanced religionist cult members who think the world is coming to an end and Jesus is coming to take them away.

TOM, WE BARELY KNEW YOU WERE IN YET!-- VILSACK DROPS OUT OF THE RACE

It was the longest of longshots from day one (which was 115 ago)-- another small state governor hoping for the Jimmy Carter miracle-- but Tom Vilsack did declare he was running for president. Tarred with the stigma of having taking over as chairman of the hated corporate whoremonger insider group, the DLC, Vilsack never really had a chance. And today he's announcing he's dropping out of the race. Why is this important enough for its own little space in the blog? As a popular two term governor of Iowa, Vilsack could play a big role in landing that crucial, momentum-building, first in the nation contest for another Democrat. If he backs Edwards, the current front-runner in Iowa, or either Clinton or Obama (neck and neck for the #2 slot), it could be a big deal... for a whole news cycle. Press conference at noon. He says the only reason he quit was because he couldn't raise enough money. I guess the DLC confiscated his rolodex when he quit.

ROVE SCHEDULES AN ANNOUNCEMENT FOR BUSH BASED ON WHEN LOU DOBBS IS NOT ON THE AIR

With Bush's plummeting approval ratings having proven that there is actually no bottom for how unpopular this regime is, Rove is still acting like the little Dutch boy with his finger in the dike. He's gone out of his way to schedule an announcement by Bush, one sure to lop a few more points off his dismal 28% approval rating, for a time when it will get the least media coverage, late Friday afternoon drifting into a dull weekend of Anna Nicole Smith burial controversy.

The Regime will announce something today that could make Lou Dobbs turn into Tom Dobbs-- that he plans to open the U.S. border to Mexican trucks in the next six to eight weeks for a one-year experimental pilot program. The Teamsters Union has been fighting an uphill battle to keep the borders closed for the past 12 years. And it isn't because they don't like Mexicans. Many of their members are Mexican-Amricans. It's because our own Department of Transportation has found that the incredibly corrupt Mexican government and Mexican trucking companies have not met even the lax safety standards required by NAFTA.

The venal and devious Rove will have Bush announce their plan late this afternoon which will permit Mexican carriers to begin traveling beyond the current 20-mile commercial zone that has been in place since NAFTA began. And Lou Dobbs won't be on TV to warn Americans that, once again, the greed-obsessed Republicans are playing Russian Roulette with America's highways. Congress needs to get on this immediately.


UPDATE: JIM OBERSTAR AND PETE DEFAZIO STEP UP TO DEFEND AMERICA AGAINST BUSH REGIME GREED AND DISREGARD FOR REAL NATIONAL SECURITY

That didn't take long. House Democrats are in action-- even if Lou Dobbs isn't on the case yet. Defazio pointed out that "under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the U.S. has consistently compromised its environmental and labor standards. Now we're being asked to risk the safety of citizens on highways and in communities where these trucks will travel. You can be sure Congress will be keeping a close eye on the implementation of this pilot program."

GARY MILLER MAY HAVE REAL PROBLEMS EVEN BEYOND THE FBI AND IRS INVESTIGATIONS-- LIKE A REAL OPPONENT FOR 2008

Gary Miller may have grown up poor, but the experience had a different impact on him than it did on Abe Lincoln. One of the most unscrupulous and devious greed-dogs in Congress, Miller is also one of the richest. And his avarice knows no bounds. Yesterday the A.P. ran a piece about the crooked land deals that could well help end the career of one of the most corrupt and slimy politicians California has ever sent to Congress.

He claims he's worried about his grandchildren's financial security so-- despite being hired by the voters as a full-time congressman, and despite being investigated by the FBI and the IRS for his crooked deals-- he insists he'll never give up the fast-buck real estate schemes that have brought him many millions of dollars.

Plenty of Orange County Democrats are working overtime to convince popular former State Senator Joe Dunn (term-limited out of his seat last year) to take on Miller. The 34th senatorial district he represented-- after defeating a Republican incumbant-- overlaps significantly with Miller's 42nd congressional district. Currently Dunn is CEO of the California Medical Association. Although the district is very Republican, it's a district Dunn has managed to get lots of votes in before. In November Miller had no opponent. Next year he will-- if he runs again.

I've been saying for some time that Congress is incapable to regulating it's own ethical behavior. The very concept is patently absurd, no less ridiculous than allowing their crooked corporate friends in regulate themselves. Congressional ethics should be turned over to a nonpartisan commission that can not be influenced by party politics. I support Speaker Pelosi's tough stand on ethics oversight regarding lobbyists but Congress is notoriously... let's say "lax," when it comes to disciplining its own members. And even if the Democrats aren't quite as bad as the Republicans, we are talking about the difference between an F and a D-minus, not an F and a gentleman's C. As long as there are Democrats like Rahm Emanuel and Steny Hoyer with DeLay-like instincts in power, the "People's Party" will be nearly as dominated by the Money Party as is the GOP.

DEMS LEANING TOWARDS BAKING A CAKE AND POPPING CHAMPAGNE BOTTLES IF LIEBERMAN REALLY LEAVES-- SOME WANT TO PUSH HIM OUT WITH A HARSH ANTI-WAR BILL

Last Sunday we ran a story about Lieberhound spitting in the eye of every Connecticut voter. It ended like this:

So what's next? Well, let me be the first to predict that Lieberman will make it official and switch his caucus-status to the Republicans, throwing control of that chamber to them. Today Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid said he's through with the symbolic nonbinding bullshit. That will be enough for Clinton's "same-thing" boy to jump over to the GOP.

I was right about Lieberman's probable fence-jumping-- as Ken has made you aware today-- but I was, thankfully, wrong about a switch giving the GOP the committee chairmanships. We'll find out real soon if Lieberman, who already sits with the Repugs, will make it official. Today Senate Democrats announced they are drafting legislation-- and that's the binding type-- "to limit the mission of U.S. troops in Iraq, effectively revoking the broad authority Congress granted in 2002."

If the Dems go through with it, Lieberman will bug out-- and good riddance to him! The proposed legislation reportedly would "restrict American troops in Iraq to combating al-Qaida, training Iraqi army and police forces, maintaining Iraq's territorial integrity and otherwise proceeding with the withdrawal of combat forces." After the bad faith shown by McConnell and the GOP in general, Reid and the Democrats are finished with the nonbinding crap.


Once it became clear that Lieberman switching parties wouldn't trigger a reorganization of the leadership structure, most Democrats were privately saying they're better off without him. Even the most egregious of Lieberman's enablers, people who undermined Lamont's campaign-- like Landrieu, Schumer, Reid, Clinton and Salazar-- don't care anymore and seem happy that this is going to come to a head. Lieberman is obviously supporting fellow warmonger John McCain for president and the two of them plus Lindsey Graham have their own little thing going. The whole brouhaha seems to be proving that Lieberman has no real leverage with the Democrats afterall (regardless of really embarrassingly sloppy reporting by some Italian guy in Time).


UPDATE: HOLY JOE THINKS ALL AMERICANS SHOULD JUST STFU AND LET BUSH KILL EVERYONE IN IRAQ

Two of our favorite bloggers, David Sirota and Jane Hamsher are talking about Devious Joe today. Neither understands why the mainstream media lets Lieberman get away with all the deception he subjected voters to in Connecticut when he was running in the general election. Then t was "by the end of this year [2006], we will begin to draw down significant numbers of American troops." Now [2007] Lieberman is bitching that Bush isn't sending enough troops into the utterly hopeless Iraq Civil War. He went from "No one wants to end the war more than I do" to threatening to stop caucusing with Democrats if they are too strenuous in their opposition to the war. Ever hear anyone on CNN mention that?

AND IT'S NOT JUST DAVID GEFFEN WHO REALIZES OBAMA WOULD MAKE A BETTER PRESIDENT THAN YOU-KNOW-WHO

Tom Daschle and David Geffen aren't the only ones bravely risking the ire of the Clinton Machine-- Geffen, a smart cookie, was already savaged on CNN's Situation Room by that reprehensible Clinton hack married to that Republican lady who works for Cheney-- this week by endorsing Obama. Although Daschle, who I would have pegged as a sure fire Clinton sycophant, hit the nail on the head by pointing out Obama's "great capacity to unify our country and inspire a new generation of young Americans, just as I was inspired by the Kennedys and Martin Luther King," it was a non-politician's endorsement that I was most excited about.

Ex-Republican and ex-NBA star Charles Barkley has been talking about-- or encouraging others to talk about-- him running for Governor of Alabama in 2010. He used to say he would run as a Republican. But last July he told the world, in disgust, that he had had it with the Republican Party. "I was a Republican until they lost their minds."

So yesterday Barkley announced he's supporting Obama, although he thinks it's kind of quixotic because he doubts America is ready for an African American-- or a woman, for that matter-- president. "I am going with Sen. Barack Obama. I like him a lot. I respect him. I really think he'd make a fantastic president." I like that. It's been making me ill seeing Clinton buying off a bunch of African-American politicos in South Carolina. Barkley, who also likes Clinton and Edwards, is doing the right thing.

I was happy to hear Obama going on yesterday, not about Hillary and her Geffen problems but about repealing Bush's tax cuts for multimillionaires. He told a crowd at a Des Moines Town Hall meeting that repealing Bush's tax cuts would be a large step toward restoring funding and assistance to weakened programs. "April 15 when I write that check, I say 'Golly, that's a lot of money,' but what I also know is there's no such thing as a free lunch, and one of those things politics is dishonest about is pretending there's a free lunch."

Tomorrow Obama speaks at UT, Austin and so many people requested tickets that they had to move the whole shebang outdoors-- and that was even before Daschle told them he was inspirational.

David Sirota says: "Why we should all hope Joe Lieberman becomes a Republican"

Now here's a different take on the Holy Joe situation. After all, the Senate is already paralyzed.

Why we should all hope Joe Lieberman becomes a Republican

By David Sirota

After reading about Joe “I’ve given my word I will caucus with Democrats” Lieberman threatening to switch parties and potentially throw control of the Senate to Republicans, I had a thought: Would it really be that big a deal? I ask this question as a progressive and a loyal Democrat. Before you scream "YES IT REALLY WOULD BE A BIG DEAL," just hear me out.

Democrats control the House, and as we've seen on the Iraq debate, a narrow majority in the Senate effectively stops that institution from doing anything. Thus, we have basic gridlock right now. Additionally, most believe that President Bush will veto any good legislation that manages to get out of Congress right now - meaning that gridlock is ensured by the White House. Throwing the Senate to the Republicans by one vote wouldn't change this gridlocked situation at all. Democrats would still have the House and filibuster-ready Senators to stop anything awful from getting to Bush's desk. Meanwhile, Democrats would still have investigatory/oversight power from their House chairmen.

What about things like judicial nominations that only the Senate deals with? I share a tiny bit of concern, in that I worry about Senate Democrats intenstinal fortitude in using the filibuster. Then again, Senate Democrats would only have to filibuster for the next year and a half until we have a new president - and that's not much to ask.

The politics of the situation would be terrific for Democrats. They could pass their entire agenda through the House and then blame the Republican Party in the Senate and White House for stopping it. This is especially advantageous because the 2008 Senate races look quite favorable to Democrats, meaning they have a good shot of taking back the upper chamber by way more than the one vote Lieberman represents.

My guess is that Lieberman understands this, that he's not really going to switch, and that he's just going to periodically tell people he "might" switch whenever he feels he hasn't been given enough love by Beltway reporters. The man is, at his core, the biggest narcissist in contemporary congressional history. What motivates him more than anything is seeing himself on television. If that means backing out of his own promises and threatening to overturn a national election in order to send more troops to die in a war, then he's willing to do that. However, he knows that once he turns the threat into reality and switches, he immediately will be perceived as politically irrelevant and, because he will have switched in defense of the Iraq War, he will also likely remembered as the most hated and infamous U.S. Senator since Joe McCarthy.

So, to sum up: I hope Lieberman switches because A) it would be advantageous for Democrats in the long-term B) it wouldn't hurt Democrats or progressives in the short-term, if Senate Democrats developed the spine to filibuster horrible nominees (admittedly an "if") and C) while he already is politically irrelevant in terms of actual power, Lieberman's switch would, finally, make him widely perceived as irrelevant, meaning that he would cease to have any effect on the national debate and that his melting, Emperor-from-Star-Wars face would stop appearing on my television set and freaking out my dog, Monty.

Of course Holy Joe didn't raise the subject of switching parties himself, but if there's one thing he knows, it's how to draw attention to himself

Editor & Publisher reports online that the issue of Time magazine due out tomorrow contains a "mini-profile" in which His Royal Holiness, Saint Joe of Connecticut, describes a party switch as "a remote possibility":

"Independent" Sen. Joe Lieberman receives a mini-profile titled "What Joe Wants," a key question since he is "the Senate's one-man tipping point." Republicans, the magazine says, are "courting him" and Lieberman "has been indulging in some fairly immodest political footsie."

Lieberman calls jumping to the Republican side, and tilting the Senate, "a remote possibility," which means there's at least a chance of that. Time seems to push Lieberman in this direction, as the article concludes: "Lieberman's GOP flirtation has its risks--and a time limit....The longer he waits to capitalize on his moment, the greater the danger that he'll be tagged as one of those politicians for whom having power is more important than using it."

Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin claims that his side still "counts on him as a friend" even though it is "a little painful and awkward."

Last month, after Lieberman told Democratic chief Sen. Harry Reid that he had "stopped attending the weekly Democratic lunch because he didn't feel comfortable discussing Iraq there, Reid offered to hold those discussions at another time," Time's Massimo Calabresi reveals. "Lieberman has started attending again." But Lieberman also keeps in touch with Bush aide Stephen Hadley "every week or two."

UPDATE

Here is the URL for the Time piece itself.


UPDATE TO THE UPDATE:
David Sirota hopes our Joe does make the big switch

Check it out here.

Quote of the day: It's time to begin sorting out and undoing the destructive legacy of one of the Bush regime's evil geniuses, John Yoo

"Unless it is properly addressed by the government, Yoo's troubling legacy could affect the history of American civil liberties for decades to come."
--David Luban [right], in "The Defense of Torture," in the March 15 New York Review of Books

As I write, the new issue of The New York Review of Books doesn't appear to be up on the website yet. For now, the website seems content to taunt me with all the things I somehow haven't gotten around to reading in the March 1 issue. (Huh? I never read Russell Baker on Ronald Reagan? How is this possible? I always read Russell Baker pieces the day the damned magazine turns up in the mailbox.)

If you click on the one visible link to March 15, you're taken to a page that proclaims, "There is no issue of The New York Review of Books for March 15, 2007." This seems to me a shockingly defeatist attitude, which is happily not borne out by the facts. Come on, nybooks.com, I'm holding the bloody thing in my hand! There really is a March 15 issue--you'll see!

In the new issue, I haven't yet read Peter Galbraith on "The Surge," or Michael Tomasky on "The Democrats" (jumping off from a whole bunch of books that have already been published in the new political season), but I have read David Luban (a law professor at Georgetown) on John Yoo and his new screed, War by Other Means: An Insider's Account of the War on Terror, maybe because Howie and I were just chatting about Yoo the other day while he (Howie, that is) was in New York. He's reading Joe Conason's apparently terrific new book, It Can Happen Here, where Yoo receives some close-up scrutiny.

In case you've been lucky enough to forget, John Yoo is the punk Berkeley academic who slithered into the Bush Justice Department, indeed into the extremely powerful policy-wise Office of Legal Counsel, on a self-appointed mission to shred the Constitution to line the bird cages of the far, far, no farther right.

Among other things, Yoo is generally presumed (authorship of OLC documents is never attributed, except to the head of the unit) to be the author of the original Bush regime We Love Torture memo.

Now Luban is remarkably generous to Yoo, as for example when he writes that "Yoo argues forcefully and intelligently, but not always honestly. Half-truths, straw men, double standards, selective quotations, significant omissions, and caricatures of his opponents' positions--all are characteristic of War by Other Means. While you may not find this all that generous, I'm wondering how, in the face of everything that follows, one can claim that Yoo argues "intelligently."

The stuff that Yoo writes, whether it's about torture or any of the other other things he fantasizes a president has the power to do in time of war (when you get right down to it, there doesn't seem to be any limit to what he thinks a president can do--as long as he's a far, far, far right-wing, deeply authoritarian president), may be technically true but highly misleading, often so close to untruths that they're within a hair's breadth of being lies, or sociopathic misinterpretations of actual facts, or just plain whoppers.

One of Luban's nice touches is pointing out that:

Only once has Yoo complained that a president "exercised the powers of the imperial presidency to the utmost . . . in our dealings with foreign nations." He added, "Unfortunately, the record of the administration has not been a happy one, in light of its costs to the Constitution and the American legal system," and "the administration has played fast and loose with the law." He added that "when it comes to using the American military, no president in recent times has had a quicker trigger finger." Yoo wrote those words about President Clinton in 2000.

Luban's generosity to Yoo extends to accepting his assertion "that the struggle against al-Qaeda actually is a war."

The problem lies not in the label, but in the consequences that supposedly follow from it. For Yoo, labeling the struggle "war" activates every war power formerly associated with battle commanders. The central contradiction, which Yoo never overcomes, is that while he insists that the US is fighting a new kind of war, he also insists that it should be fought with the full panoply of traditional presidential war powers. But these war powers were designed for conflicts in which the enemy is in uniform and belongs to an identifiable foreign government, and whose duration and conclusion are defined by victories, surrenders, and peace treaties.

It appears that in Yoo's psychotic fantasy world, these unchecked and uncheckable presidential war powers all derive from his constitutional role as commander in chief. But as with the entire case for the supposedly "unitary executive," the supposed constitutional doctrine on which the modern-day right-wing loonies base their argument for what amounts to a right-wing dictatorship, it's all made up ini their diseased heads. The Constitution doesn't say any such things--they've taken a few wispy threads and applied the full potency and majesty of their screeching mental illness.

"There is absolutely no reason to believe," Luban writes, "that either the framers of the Constitution or its early interpreters would have given broad war powers to a commander in chief if they thought that those powers could displace civilian law anywhere, perhaps for decades, just on the president's say-so."

Now comes a crucial paragraph:

Yoo might reply that whatever we think the framers would have intended, hey made the president commander in chief. But this brings us to a disabling weakness in Yoo's constitutional theory: the relevant clause of the Constitution says nothing about the breadth of the president's war powers. The clause designates the president as commander in chief of the army, navy, and militias "when called into the actual Service of the United States"--period. It never explains what powers the commander in chief possesses, and the Philadelphia debates were equally silent on this issue. Is the authority of the commander in chief a narrow power of military command or a vast set of "war powers"? Yoo assumes the latter, but his assumption has no textual support in the Constitution, and he falls back again and again on [Alexander] Hamilton's call for executive "energy" and "dispatch." He does not mention that many of the founders had deep suspicions of Hamilton's pro-executive views.

When it comes to "energy" and "dispatch," Yoo has few equals. Luban cites Yoo's strong identification with Hamilton ("the most pro-executive and militarist of the constitutional founders, and also the most prolific and polemical") and notes, "He has written a staggering number of speeches, Op-Ed pieces, and articles defending hard-line policies since leaving the OLC," and now two books.

Luban concludes:

It remains now for a Democratic Congress to hold hearings to clarify Yoo's role in changing government policy and go on to propose changes in repressive laws--a the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Patrick Leahy, has urged. For unless it is properly addressed by the government, Yoo's troubling legacy could affect the history of American civil liberties for decades to come.

With luck, by the time you read this, nybooks.com will have discovered that its pessimism was unwarranted, that there is indeed a March 15 issue of The New York Review of Books, and Professor Luban's piece will be one of those offered for free viewing, so you can see how he fleshes out these arguments.

WILL McCAIN APOLOGIZE? HOW ABOUT HILLARY? CHENEY? BUSH? ANYONE?

If you turn on TV cable "news" in between the breathless updates on Anna Nicole Smith's body all you hear is stuff about Hillary Clinton not apologizing for her vote on October 10, 2002 in favor of Bush's Iraq War. You'd probably never guess that the entire GOP caucus and most Senate Democrats also owe America an apology for the same vote. CNN must have forgotten to mention that... 1,200 times this week.

The mass media is also forgetting to mention another demand for an apology from a high profile senator. Not just a senator, by the mass media's favorite senatorial clown, John McCain, like Clinton a presidential wanna-be. This time it's the malevolent Dick Cheney who is demanding an apology.

A few days ago McCain, never one to shrink from kicking a man who's down, flip-flopped on his old pal Rumsfeld and told a roomful of South Carolina right-wingers that he thinks "that Donald Rumsfeld will go down in history as one of the worst secretaries of Defense in history." Cheney, long Rumsfeld's closest political partner, flipped his wig. He has a different point of view: "I believe the record speaks for itself: Don Rumsfeld is the finest secretary of Defense this nation has ever had." And he spitefully painted a very unattractive picture of McCain. "I just fundamentally disagree with John. John said some nasty things about me the other day, and then next time he saw me, ran over to me and apologized. Maybe he'll apologize to Rumsfeld."


McCain may change his tune when Darth gets back from Asia but this morning he told his media pals that he's not apologizing and that he believes what he said about Rumsfeld being the worst Secretary of Defense in history. Sooner or later someone may ask him how that impacts his views on the worst Commander-in-Chief in history, Rumsfeld's direct supervisor.

And, just to come full circle, Nancy Pelosi is demanding Bush make Cheney apologize to her from impugning her patriotism. Remember what Cheney said to Patrick Leahy on the floor of the Senate?

UPDATE: AND YES, I'LL APOLOGIZE TO MITCH McCONNELL FOR CALLING HIM A HOMO...

as soon as he stops voting to make other gay men and women live as second class citizens.

MITCH McCONNELL-- CHENEY'S OLE KENTUCKY HOMO?

Mitch McConnell, a heavily closeted gay homophobic senator from Kentucky and very much Dick Cheney's bitch in the U.S. Senate, is up for re-election next year. Recent polling in the Bluegrass state shows that McConnell has a relatively low approval rating (52%). In fact, Kentucky voters in general are not looking too favorably on the GOP's very damaged brand. "With the war in Iraq going badly, President Bush's approval rating in Kentucky is the lowest of his presidency, according to a Courier-Journal Bluegrass Poll-- and the lowest of any U.S. president since the poll first asked such a question in 1987. The most recent poll found that 55 percent of those questioned disapprove of the job Bush is doing, while 43 percent approve. And 60 percent say they don't like the way Bush has handled the war in Iraq... For Bush, the poll found, it doesn't matter if you're black, white, educated, uneducated, rural or citified; if you live in Kentucky, chances are you don't like the way he is handling his job or the war in Iraq. He has low approval ratings among all but a few demographic groups."

It is widely thought that ex-Congresswoman Ann Northup was defeated in November because of her rubber stamp support for Bush's Iraq policies. Over 60% of Kentucky voters oppose Bush's escalation and want their senator to oppose it as well. Instead, McConnell is using parliamentary tricks to prohibit a debate on the issue. But being Cheney's go-to-gal on frustrating Democrats' efforts to stop the escalation or end the war, isn't the only problem McConnell is going to have to face in his quest for re-election. Although he's highly favored to win by Inside-the-Beltway prognosticators and by Kentucky political observers, McConnell is far from immune from serious criticism.

Beyond his outrageous obstructionism and his identification with an unpopular and more and more catastrophic war, McConnell is also well-known as the ultimate sleazy insider. On issue after issue important to Kentucky voters, he is determined to prevent Congress from solving problems facing the country in order to continue sucking up to the Bush Regime and GOP big money donors. McConnell has an undeniable record for DeLay-type pay to play politics, and he’s the ultimate slimy Frist/Santorum-like K Street insider. His unyielding opposition to any reform of the money-drenched electoral system will prevent any serious consideration of electoral public financing.

Can McConnell be beaten? The Beltway Money Party Establishment isn't interested. Grassroots activists are.

ANY DEMOCRAT-- EVEN HILLARY CLINTON-- WILL KICK ANY REPUBLICAN'S ASS

I don't really know if any Democrat will beat any Republican in 2008. How could I? But it sure feels that way. Of course, it also feels like there is no one who will win the Republican nomination for president anyway. I mean maybe that ex-fat governor from Arkansas who lost all the weight. At least people will be able to relate to the humanity of him struggling overcome his obesity. That's easier of relate to than most politics, especially the devious Inside-the-Beltway kind. The thing is, Republicans seem absolutely determined to behave like lemmings. Regardless of the poll numbers, the hardcore primary voters will not accept anyone as the Party's nominee who opposes the disastrous was that is anethema to the vast-- and growing-- majority of Americans. To be able to run as a Republican you must prove beyond doubt that you cannot win the general election. Fine with me.

The latest polling from Iowa, a Republican poll by Strategic Vision, shows 48% of Republicans favor a withdrawal from Iraq within 6 months (37% favor stay the course). Only 9% of Democrats in Iowa support stay the course; 63% want withdrawal.

On top of that, I'm sure you remember that just over a month ago Charlie Cook declared the Republican brand to be toxic, right? He was getting that from Republican campaign consultants who are far more savvy than their Democratic counterparts (who are all demonstrably retarded and so obsessed with personal greed and avarice that they... seem like Republicans; except for how stupid they are.) Anyway, the GOP consultants are telling everyone that being a Republican right now really sucks. The whole DeLay Republican Culture of Corruption has caught up with them and voters see them as the Insider party and totally untrustworthy. That's bad. That's why they did so terribly in November and that's why in 22 months they will probably look back to last November as the good ole days.

Since the election, nearly 6% more Americans consider themselves Democrats than before the election. That's pretty big. And about the same number of voters say they no longer consider themselves Republicans. But the really big news isn't in either of these numbers. It's among the low-information voters who call themselves "independents." Limbaugh says these people are morons. They might not be morons but they aren't following the news as closely as DWT readers are. It takes them a lot longer to change their minds. And they just did. Over half the independent voters favor Democrats and only 40% favor Republicans, the switch that will elect a (generic) Democratic president and expand Democratic majorities in the House, Senate, the governors' chairs and the state legislatures.

DAVID GEFFEN SPEAKS FOR... ME? WELL, MAYBE JUST THIS ONCE

I'm still in NYC and I had lunch with an old friend-- a really smart one-- who told me he thinks Giuliani is even worse than Bush. Worse than Bush? Can you imagine? Unlike me, he lived here while Giuliani was mayor. He's agreed to write a blog for me on it... sometime. Bob Barr doesn't seem all that impressed either, accurately pointing out that Rudy's whole bullshit schtik, unveiled on the very schtiky Larry King Show, is "a sleight of hand. On issues that I consider extremely important to conservatives, such as respect for the Second Amendment, he is nowhere near even remotely in the ballpark of a conservative philosophy." And Barr's not the only conservative not buying the new Rudy. Today's New York Observer (no, no one reads it here either) kvetches that Rudy "now comes in a new package [but] social conservatives still aren't buying it. [The] famously resolute, plain-spoken and uncompromising [Giuliani has] unveiled new shades of nuance to go along with his historically liberal positions on abortion, gun control and gay marriage, which pose the major obstacles" to his pursuit of the Republicans' far right base.

Meanwhile, another ex-music business luminary sure was painting that same kind of ugl-ee picture today for our old friend-- and his old friend (for real)-- Hillary Clinton! It started with the Maureen Dowd column in today's New York Times and it's all over the TV now. First it was just a glitzy party that netted Obama $1.3 million and the TV spin was that only sitting presidents get that much at one event.

An aside: when Obama was running in the Democratic primary for Senate I helped throw a fundriaser for him in L.A. People filed in and deposited their checks and he spoke, just like all fundraisers. And then something happened that never happens-- and I mean never-- after Obama's speech everyone started scrambling for a flat surface so they could write a second check. That's was the moment I knew he would win.

Maybe Geffen had that kind of a moment yesterday. He sure burned some major bridges-- although, like he says, he doesn't need to sleep in the Lincoln Bedroom again and, besides, his own bedroom is way nicer. Still, "Everybody in politics lies, but they [the Clintons] do it with such ease, it’s troubling,” is... well, intemperate. Right on, David! And it didn't stop there. "Obama is inspirational, and he’s not from the Bush royal family or the Clinton royal family. Americans are dying every day in Iraq. And I’m tired of hearing James Carville on television." This guy could be a populist!

The Clintons wigged out and all those Lieberman type Inside-the-Beltway monsters that claim to be Democrats but always make sure Republicans win and now work for Hillary, went to work on Geffen. Oh, that's going to do a lot of good! So is Hollywood going to desert Hillary and flip to Obama? I didn't get my instructions yet-- although maybe they're in the mailbox and I'll see 'em when I get home tomorrow. Hillary sure comes off kind of even creepier than usual in this episode, though. Gee, I hope someone else gets the nomination.


JOHN ARAVOSIS TOO

Yes, Geffen and Aravosis, they're both speakin' for me today. See? And you thought Hillary was the gays' candidate? Looks like Romney and Giuliani have all the closeted gays. The well-adjusted ones... Obama? Edwards? Waiting for Gore? Anyway, Aravosis is deploring all this Hillary viciousness today. Who could blame him? She sounds like a real nasty piece of work and she's trying to paint the rest of the Democrats-- everybody but her and Lieberman-- as a bunch of dangerous radical lefties who don't care about Bush's idiotically-named "War on Terror." You know what? I'm about ready to hope she loses the primary.

Confidential to the Washington press corps (and to so-called journalists everywhere): Hey, babes, this is kind of how the deal is supposed to work

It hasn't been a happy week or two for the various federal agencies who are responsible for (a) our active-duty troops, (b) our wounded military personnel, and (c) our veterans. Chickens have been coming home to roost all over the damn place in an administration that, while perpetrating an unending series of diplomatic and military outrages, has unflinchingly used as one of its principal "covers" its concern for the safety and well-being of our troops.

Over the years that these monsters have been in power we've seen enough crying-in-the-wilderness journalistic reports to have a pretty good idea that no government in U.S. history--and maybe no government anywhere, ever--has so little protected, and in fact so grievously harmed, all three groups. You'd like to think that if the great mass of the American people were to find out about and understand the situation, the formalities of impeachment and conviction of the Bush-Cheney regime could be taken care of in a week or two.

Last Friday we reprinted Al Kamen's "In the Loop" report that day on the Defense Dept.'s recent decision, based on its lawyers' reading of privacy regulations (imagine, the Pentagon suddenly concerned about privacy!), to cut off Veterans Administration doctors' access to computer data they've depended on in treating some of the most seriously damaged nonfatal casualties of the administration's warmongering. As we noted, it was one of those rare occasions when Al didn't even try to be humorous.

In today's column Al reports:

VA Regains Access to Medical Records

By Al Kamen
Wednesday, February 21, 2007; A13

The Defense Department is once again permitting Department of Veterans Affairs doctors to get full medical records they say they need to treat severely injured troops arriving at VA hospitals from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Pentagon officials cut off VA's access on Jan. 23, concluding that privacy concerns and federal regulations barred the department from using the military's Joint Patient Tracking Application system without a formal data-sharing agreement.

VA physicians, who handle troops with brain and other serious injuries at four trauma centers, strongly protested the cutoff, saying that they rely on the tracking system to help them determine the best treatment for the wounded.

Sen. Daniel K. Akaka (D-Hawaii), chairman of the Veterans Affairs Committee, and ranking Republican Larry E. Craig (Idaho) wrote Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel David S.C. Chu on Feb. 6 that they were "deep[ly] concerned" the VA doctors had been cut off.

The Pentagon on Thursday declined to comment on the situation when we called, and the senators had received no response.

On Friday, VA officials notified the senators that access to the tracking system had been restored. Akaka and Craig said they were pleased the problem had been resolved. So, most likely, is everyone else.

Now, you'd like to think that with the chairman and ranking minority member of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee on the case, it was going to be rectified--eventually. Probably.

But the fact is that Senators Akaka and Craig sent their letter on Feb. 6, and as of last week clearly weren't getting anywhere. In fact, it wouldn't be unreasonable to imagine that it was someone connected to that committee who in frustration was trying to drum up some media attention. After all, for once the problem wasn't with the V.A. but with the DoD, and you don't imagine Pentagon heavyweights worrying overmuch about the folks who oversee the V.A.

Never underestimate the power of public humiliation, however. And it seems to me that, while you're not likely to learn it at the Judy Miller School of Journalism, this is what journalism is about.

I don't know, maybe Al's column had nothing to do with the DoD's turnabout, and it's just a coincidence that the very day it appeared, somebody in the Pentagon suddenly figured how to solve the problem. Whatever, he did what he had to do.

This is a good thing you did, Al. It will be with even greater pride now every time we rip your column off.

Quote of the day: If even Irving Libby's mouthpiece notices the wheels coming off the administration, can't someone make those people go away?

"The wheels are coming off the Bush administration."
--shyster Ted Wells, mouthpiece for Irving L. "Huckleberry" Libby, explaining (?) in his summation to the jury why . . . uh, why his client should, uh . . . well, the wheels are coming off the Bush administration, aren't they?

Okay, maybe Bill Clinton was too young to shoot JFK--still, you just know he had something to do with it. And that Hillary? Don't get me started!

"At the end of the clip, as the camera focuses on the backs of the president and first lady, Kennedy's suit is significantly bunched up, with several layers creased together. Only 90 seconds before Lee Harvey Oswald fired the first shot, Kennedy's suit jacket was precisely in the position to misrepresent the bullet's entry point."
--investigative reporter Gerald Posner (see below)

I've talked here before about my theory of reality substitute, that mysterious phenomenon whereby people prefer a carefully coiffed substitute for reality to the real thing, with the curious but inviolable proviso that the substitute version come with some certifiable link to reality.

Take "reality TV"--or, better, TV movies. If you've never been privy to the inner workings of a TV network, you may not realize how desperately important it is in the acquisition process that the story be "based upon" real events. From what I've heard, those people will go nuts over this, making sure that the story started out as something that really happened.

Of course everyone involved knows that once the property goes into development--through the numerous script drafts, the actual filming, and editing and the rest of postproduction--no disagreement, however large or small, will ever be influenced in even the most minuscule way by the phrase: "But that's not the way it happened." In fact, if the process is completed successfully, the picture will be a living lie in every particular. But a lie "based upon" a true story! (Yes, there's often an exclamation point to highlight what Stephen Colbert might describe as its "truthiness.")

In simplest terms it's not hard to understand why people are so eager for a substitute for reality. Reality is so big and complicated and messy, and often tiresome if not outright boring. Above all, it just friggin' won't let you go! It just won't cut you any slack. It's always there, all around you, that big bully reality!

Who wouldn't prefer a nice substitute, one that's well-crafted to suit the way one wishes reality really were (or imagines that it really is, if one has a limited grasp of the real thing). Of course this may entail substantial outrage, because being outraged can be fun too, if the cause and target are chosen for appropriate entertainment value.

(Witness the new genre of right-wing propaganda "fact-based" movies like the famous ABC crock of lies about 9/11, cunningly concocted to press all the buttons of outrage that the master liars of the right have learned many people love to have pressed, like the one that produces the automatic response, "Ooh, that Bill Clinton!")

No, it's not hard at all to see why many people prefer an alternate reality to the real thing. The part that fascinates me is the requirement of that certified link to real reality. Oh, sure, there are lots of people who don't care, who are perfectly happy with any mode of fiction. But it appears that a lot of people do care about the link and demand it, even when the link shrinks so fine as to be virtually invisible, as in the case of what Keith Olbermann calls Fox Noise. And my gosh, when John "I'm the Craziest Thing on the Planet, Alive or Dead" Gibson [left] or Sean "The Big Lug" Hannity or Bill "I Lie Because I Can" O'Reilly is in full yammer, it's often hard to spot any link to reality beyond the occasional use of nearly real person or place names.

One of mankind's favorite genres of reality is the conspiracy theory. We tend to think of these as a modern development, but I suspect they go back as far as man himself. There's no doubt, though, that modern science and technology have made possible a brave new world of superconspiracies. Now that science has taught us that there's an explanation for everything, for example, all we need is a tiny hole to pick it, and we're in. Off to the races, as it were.

Of course scientists also tell us that the real world is so complicated that a complete explanation for even a fairly simple event may be beyond our powers, simply because, however much we may learn, there's still so much we don't know. And there's always information missing. What scientists can't help us with much is figuring out which of those missing details are significant. Well, it's hard. And as so often happens in human behavior, at the very moment when we most need the wisest and most cautious counsel, we usually send in the clowns.

At the top of the list, of course, are the conspiracy theorists. In their world, of course, it's the missing or contradictory detail that's always the most important. And of course "importance" is generally judged, as we know, by entertainment value.

I'm sure some of you know by now what's set me off. Let me clue the rest of you in.

Surely by now everyone has seen that bit of suddenly surfaced 8mm film of JFK's car in the motorcade in Dallas taken mere seconds before the assassination. Well, writer Gerald Posner, author of Case Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Assassination of JFK saw it too, and it led him to write this op-ed piece in today's New York Times:

New York Times
February 21, 2007
Op-Ed Contributor

Single Bullet, Single Gunman
By GERALD POSNER

THE ability to use advanced forensics and minuscule traces of DNA to solve crimes, even cold cases decades old, has turned many Americans into armchair sleuths seeking to "solve" the unexpected deaths of people like Princess Diana and Anna Nicole Smith. But sometimes, old-fashioned evidence is as useful in solving puzzles as anything under a nuclear microscope.

Last weekend, a never-before-seen home movie was made public showing President John F. Kennedy's motorcade just before his assassination. An amateur photographer, George Jefferies, took the footage and held onto it for more than 40 years before casually mentioning it to his son-in-law, who persuaded him to donate it to the Sixth Floor Museum in Dallas. The silent 8-millimeter color film was of interest to most people simply because it showed perhaps the clearest close-up of Jacqueline Kennedy taken that morning.

But to assassination researchers, the footage definitively resolves one of the case's enduring controversies: that the bullet wound on Kennedy's back, as documented and photographed during the autopsy, did not match up with the location of the bullet hole on the back of his suit jacket and shirt. The discrepancy has given conspiracy theorists fodder to argue that the autopsy photos had been retouched and the report fabricated.

This is more than an academic debate among ballistics buffs. It is critical because if the bullet did enter where shown on the autopsy photos, the trajectory lines up correctly for the famous "single bullet" theory--the Warren Commission hypothesis that one bullet inflicted wounds to both Kennedy and Gov. John Connally of Texas. However, if the hole in the clothing was the accurate mark of where the bullet entered, it would have been too low for a single bullet to have inflicted all the wounds, and would provide evidence of a second assassin.

For years, those of us who concluded that the single-bullet theory was sound, still had to speculate that Kennedy's suit had bunched up during the ride, causing the hole to be lower in the fabric than one would expect. Because the holes in the shirt and jacket align perfectly, if the jacket was elevated when the shot struck, the shirt also had to have been raised.

Some previously published photos taken at the pivotal moment showed Kennedy's jacket slightly pushed up, but nothing was definitive. Meanwhile, conspiracy theorists have done everything to disprove that the jacket was bunched. Some used grainy photos or film clips to measure minute distances between Kennedy's hairline and his shirt, what they dubbed the "hair-to-in-shoot distance."

The new film has finally resolved the issue. At the end of the clip, as the camera focuses on the backs of the president and first lady, Kennedy's suit is significantly bunched up, with several layers creased together. Only 90 seconds before Lee Harvey Oswald fired the first shot, Kennedy's suit jacket was precisely in the position to misrepresent the bullet's entry point.

While the film solves one mystery, it leaves another open: estimates are that at least 150,000 people lined the Dallas motorcade route that fateful day, so there must be many other films and photographs out there that have never come to light. Those who have them should bear in mind that even the most innocuous-seeming artifacts, like the Jefferies tape, can sometimes put enduring controversies to rest. As Gary Mack, the curator of the Sixth Floor Museum [above] said the other day, "The bottom line is, don't throw anything away."

UPDATE--I HOPE EVERYONE READS MILT SHOOK'S COMMENT

Our old pal Milt Shook has added some extremely interesting thoughts about how conspiracy plot lines weave in and out of our everyday realities, including this striking suggestion:

The right's political strategy relies almost exclusively on spreading so much bullshit out there, that people don't know what the truth is. Fox News isn't out there lying because they think most people will believe their lies. They're out there spreading lies, because they know that with so many stories out there, people won't know what the truth is, and well eventually shrug and say "Oh, well."

That's why so few people have noticed that Bush is dismantling civil rights; that Bush is declaring most laws that Congress passes as irrelevant, and why it took so long for his natural approval rating to surface.

And just to clarify, I certainly didn't mean to suggest that there aren't any conspiracies. For example, now that Hillary Clinton has devoted so much energy to coopting or otherwise working around the very forces that made up the "vast right-wing conspiracy" she once accused of bedeviling her husband's administration, commentators seem to forget how she was ridiculed for making the accusation in the first place. Oh, so she wasn't imagining things after all?

As Milt suggests above, the Bush administration itself harbors a nest of evil conspiracies. Perhaps more than anything else, Karl Rove is the master conspirator of our times.

WHY I VOTED FOR CAROL SHEA-PORTER THIS MORNING

Today Russ Feingold started up his Pick A Progressive Patriot Campaign again. It's a great idea and helps grassroots Democrats get acquainted with our representatives. The winner will get $5,000 from Russ' PAC. Russ is asking-- Patrick Murphy, Carol Shea-Porter, Dave Loebsack, and John Hall-- I'm donating money to. I just voted for Carol. Let me tell you why.

In fact, the reason I voted for her is the same reason I invited her to be a Blue America guest at Firedoglake in a few weeks. Carol ran a purely grassroots campaign, was one of only two Democratic victors (the other being Loebsack) who won without spending a million dollars and made promises that she is keeping-- like actively working towards ending Bush's war in Iraq.

Although she has been targeted for defeat by New Hampshire's notoriously corrupt Republican Party and has been viciously attacked and smeared already, Carol has passed on taking money from Inside the Beltway power structures. In fact, not only does she have a howling bunch of bloodthirsty Republicans after her, I've noticed that the Beltway Democratic consultant class already has their knives out for her, complaining that she isn't hiring... them. Sounds like just the kind of candidate we need to be assisting. Let's start by making sure she gets a shot at Russ Feingold's $5,000 purse.

The Democrats in this include:
Patrick Murphy (PA-8), Carol Shea-Porter (NH-1), Dave Loebsack (IA-2), John Hall (NY-19), Harry Mitchell (AZ-5), Jason Altmire (PA-4), Joe Courtney (CT-2), Nancy Boyda (KS-2), Ron Klein (FL-22), and Baron Hill (IN-9).

Matt Stoller is a big fan of Carol's too and he sent me a story about the GOP attack on her today. Basically the Republican Party-- the same one that has several officials in prison now for manipulating the election that illegitimately placed John Sununu in his Senate seat-- has been trying to paint Carol's attempt to reach out to constituents with all shades of opinion as an attempt to intimidate war supporters. Future GOP prison inmate Fergus Cullen, now the state Republican Chairman, claims Carol's attempt to end the war is undermining U.S. troops-- a silly and discredited Rove talking point that has been rejected by the U.S. military. Cullen called the debate to halt the escalation "shameful." Carol hit back the way all Democrats should when they get attacked by these cowardly little fascist twits: "If Fergus Cullen has the courage of his convictions, he should go enlist, because they're having trouble meeting their quota. He's young, he's single and he's healthy. If he needs to know where the recruiters are, call me."

CHARLIE BROWN LENDS A HAND TO JOHN DOOLITTLE

Although he spent a good deal of taxpayer funds to alert his Northern California constituents that he's holding a series of "listening sessions," Congressman John Doolittle (who still hasn't been indicted) neglected to let anyone know exactly where or when the sessions would be. Charlie Brown to the rescue! Charlie has sent out e-mails to thousands of CA-04 citizens with the exact places and times of the listening sessions:

Wednesday, Feb. 21: Placerville 2-3pm
El Dorado County Fairgrounds
Marshall Building
100 Placerville Road
Placerville, CA 95667

Orangevale 6-7pm
Orangevale Community Center
6826 Hazel Avenue
Orangevale, CA 95662

Thursday, Feb 22: Grass Valley 4-5pm
Nevada County Fairgrounds
Northern Mines Building
11228 McCourtney Road
Grass Valley, CA 95949

Friday, Feb. 23: Auburn 2-3pm
Gold Country Fairgrounds
Sierra Building
1273 High Street
Auburn, CA 95603

Charlie is urging people in the district to participate in this little exercise in democracy. Remember, Doolittle squeaked by with less than 50% of the vote and he's been alienating more people since January with more bizarre right-wing extremism, voting against popular measures like cutting student loan interest rates, raising the minimum wage, energy independence, and, predictably, against the new direction in Iraq that a bi-partisan majority of Americans, many military commanders, and the Iraq Study Group have called for.

Charlie even put together some sample questions for concerned citizens to look at and ask Doolittle about. They sound like GREAT questions! I'd love to hear Doolittle answer any of them:

1. You recently said that you are “skeptical” of the administration’s handling of the War in Iraq--a change from your previous "stay the course" position. Are you also accepting responsibility, as a member of the Republican leadership in Congress, for failing to provide adequate oversight on this policy for the past 5 years?
2. What military objectives have not yet been achieved in Iraq? How exactly will escalating the war resolve longstanding religious and political differences that are fueling the violence? Why isn’t a diplomatic surge focused on Iraqi reconciliation and regional engagement, as has been proposed by many Democrats, a better solution?
3. Jack Abramoff called you a "hero" for his client, the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas (CNMI). You said during the 2006 campaign that you didn't believe the well documented assertions of sweatshops, forced abortions, and sex slavery on the CNMI. Since then, further supporting testimony has been given to Congress. Do you still deny the existence of these conditions, and will you support legislation to prevent further abuses by holding this U.S. territory to American labor and immigration standards?
4. Why did Jack Abramoff continue to pay your wife's consulting firm $5,000 a month for almost one full year after the event she was hired to produce was canceled? If work was done, will you release the documents to prove this?
5. Yes or no: Do you think it is right for elected officials, or their leadership PACs, to keep campaign contributions from felons convicted of bribing members of Congress? How do you reconcile the apparent hypocrisy of taking money from lawbreakers in order to be able to make law in Congress?
6. Do you think it is wrong for an elected official to divert a percentage of campaign contributions into a family bank account? If you do not, please explain why.
7. Why did you earmark $37 million in defense contracts the military never requested for a man who was recently indicted for bribing Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham?
8. How can you justify voting yourself a raise every year (7 times in the last 10 years), while voting against raising the minimum wage for the lowest paid American workers?
9. Throughout your career, you have talked about family values and moral leadership. Why then have you not returned campaign contributions from confessed child predator Mark Foley and why did you testify on behalf of convicted sexual predator David Roy Phipps?
10. You recently wrote that Sacramento is at risk for the same level of catastrophic flooding as New Orleans. When was the last time a Category 4 Hurricane struck California's Central Valley? How many more taxpayer sponsored Auburn Dam feasibility studies will it take before you commit to a sensible, cost effective, bi-partisan flood control solution for the Sacramento Valley—starting with improvements to our levees and the dry raise to Folsom Dam?
11. You recently cited fiction author Michael Crichton in explaining your view that human-caused global warming is a myth. Can you cite any non-fiction sources that you consult before voting on climate change issues in Congress?
12. You have recently re-introduced legislation to allow people to “opt out” of receiving political robo-dial calls. If you believe these calls are intrusive, why didn't you take action to stop the National Republican Campaign Committee from flooding your constituents with misleading robo calls on your behalf at all hours of the night during the 2006 campaign?

WASHINGTON POST WHITEWASHES TAUSCHER FOR INSIDE-THE-BELTWAY BUBBLE-HEADS

This morning Juliet Eilperin and Michael Grunwald delievered a Valentine's box of confections in a nice Washington Post wrapper to Ellen Tauscher and, nevermind the date; it was very timely. A number of Bay Area-based activists and bloggers are determined to challenge one of the Democratic Party's most egregious corporate whores and Bush enablers in 2008 this side of Joe Lieberman.

Eilperin and Grunwald have written an inherently dishonest piece-- pure Inside-the-Beltway ass-kissery for the powers-that-be. Reading their whitewash you would never know that Tauscher recruited and pushed a pro-corporate, anti-grassroots shill to run against Democratic grassroots hero Jerry McNerney, only that she's being victimized by some left wing bullies for being a hard-working "moderate." From Eilperin and Grunwald a reader would reasonably conclude that Tauscher had merely "supported McNerney's centrist opponent in his primary, to the disgust of the Net roots." Not a word about the Tauscher-inspired financing that nearly caused McNerney to have to spend all his non-corporate, grassroots money in the primary, endangering his bid to oust the hated Pombo.

And every time Eilperin and Grunwald vomit out "moderate," as though the 135 House Dems with more progressive voting records than her are not moderates, but extreme leftists and dangerous communists, my skin crawls. Only reactionary Democrats have voted more frequently with the Republican extremists on substantive issues than Tauscher has, yet in the Post they phrase it a little differently: "Since 2003 she has voted with her party more than 90 percent of the time. This year, she has marched in lock step with Pelosi. But to Net-roots sites such as Daily Kos, Firedoglake, and Crooks and Liars, she's Lieberman in a pantsuit. 'I don't think it's a fair comparison,' Tauscher said. 'My colleagues look at this and say, "If they're going after Ellen Tauscher, holy moly!"'" Yeah, holy moly! What's next? Will someone challenge Jim Marshall or John Barrow or David Scott, 3 Georgia Democrats who spend an awful lot of time voting with Republicans?

Marshall's in a safe Republican seat and although his voting record pisses a lot of Democrats off, it's not likely anyone is going to challenge him. Barrow and, especially Scott, on the other hand, are in safe Democratic seats... and they still vote like Republicans. But that's a top for another time.

The Post asks, rather rhetorically, since her p.r. flack has already filled in the blanks, "Why are they going after Ellen Tauscher?"

She has annoyed [like in high school?] the left [Lenin? Castro? Markos?] by supporting legislation to scale back the estate tax, tighten bankruptcy rules and promote free-trade agreements. She served as vice chair of the pro-business Democratic Leadership Council, which many liberal activists dismiss as a quasi-Republican K Street front group. And she voted to authorize the Iraq war, although she did so with caveats, and was quick to express her displeasure with its execution.

This oversimplification to the point of willful distortion is a perfect example of how the Eilperin and Grunwald have delivered for Tauscher today. The Democratic grassroots' dismay with Tauscher is not about "a vote" in 2002 for Bush's Iraq War. Between October 10, 2002 and May 25, 2005, the House voted on 44 Iraq War bills. Tauscher's Iraq voting record is one of the worst of any Democrat's, and far from being in "lockstep" with Nancy Pelosi's, as Eilperin and Grunwald deceitfully attempt to convey. Starting on October 10, 2002 with Roll Call 454 on H.J. Res. 114, the final resolution authorizing Bush to use force against Iraq, Tauscher didn't vote with Nancy Pelosi and other progressive Democrats-- and the majority of Democrats in the House; she voted with Tom DeLay and Roy Blunt and the worst reactionary, warmongering scum in the Congress to give Bush the authority to do what he's done in Iraq. Bad enough to remove Tauscher? Absolutely. But that was just the beginning. Since then she voted with the right-wingers 13 more times to carry out Bush's war policies.

BLAIR CUTS, RUNS... NOW IT'S JUST BUSH... AND HOWARD'S 800 OZZIE TROOPERS

I don't know who's left from Bush's phony Coalition of the Willing Bought And Paid For... Fiji? Bulgaria? Honduras? I know the Spain and Italy are long gone. And I know that it's Wednesday today and that Tony Blair is announcing that he's withdrawing that last significant contingent of non-American troops from the midst of the Iraqi Civil War, a Civil War brought about by the inept-- even catastrophically inept-- policies of George W. Bush and the NeoCon thugs and war criminals he's surrounded himself with.

Yep, press reports are all about timetables and cutting and running. Blair will announce the withdrawal of 1,500 troops immediately and 3,000 before year's end. That's about 40% of Britain's force in Iraq. Does that mean Bush will have to add that many to his surge? Maybe he'd better wait to hear what the Danes and the South Koreans say about their troops first; both have been making noises about getting out too. Or is Bush's loud-mouthed Ozzie bag of wind going to step into the lurch and quadruple his countries 800 troops?

Blair says all is peaceful in the southern (Shi'a) part of Iraq. Funny, the Bush Regime claims it's Iranian (Shi'a) weapons killing Americans. Maybe the Shi'a weapons made in Iran only kill Americans and not Brits or anyone else. Or maybe someone is up to his old tricks of lying to protect the Saudis (Sunnis) again...

As Glenn Greenwald pointed out last night, this is quite the departure-- idea-wise-- for Mr. Blair, since just a few weeks ago, when Bush announced his escalation, and public opinion in the U.K., not to mention Parliamentary opinion, went bonkers, Blair refused to consider... exactly what he just announced he is doing. Blair insisted that "For us to set an arbitrary timetable . . . would send the most disastrous signal to the people whom we are fighting in Iraq. It is a policy that, whatever its superficial attractions may be, is deeply irresponsible."

That rather striking reversal does not appear to reflect much confidence in the prospects of success for the President's Glorious AEI Surge currently underway Moreover, given that British troops are deployed primarily in Southern Iraq, their withdrawal will either require a deployment of replacement American forces (thereby diluting the "surge"), or create a vacuum where Iran can exert still greater influence and/or provide a safe haven for Shiite militias to wait out the "surge" in safety (while American forces do their dirty work in battling the Sunnis).

Looks like Blair has been prevailed upon by sounder minds to choose door number "deeply irresponsible," as he prepares to leave government service and cash in with Bush-connected corporations that have promised him great wealth for the services rendered covering for the Bush Regime in the half dozen last years.

And just when everything was looking so swell too-- with American soldiers bombarding Muqtada al-Sadr's office, with every single poll indicating that Bush's ratings actually have no floor after all, with it raining helicopters over Iraq, with even a vicious warmonger like McCain blaming the disaster in Iraq on the Bush Regime (referring to it as "Rumsfeld" to be polite), and with civil war breaking out in the GOP congressional caucus, party whips Blunt and Cantor having green-lighted attacks on endangered Republican incumbents like Ric Keller (FL), Mike Castle (DE), Jim Ramstad (MN), Mark Kirk (IL) and Jim Walsh (NY) after they voted in favor of the nonbinding symbolic resolution. Maybe something will go right some time; you never know. The Republican-packed courts sure seem to be delivering for the Regime! I sure hope they can be part of the denazification policy once Bush is more a judicial problem than a political and national security problem.


UPDATE: MORE LIES FROM CHENEY & CONDI-- "THE COALITION REMAINS INTACT"

Bush's social studies tutor is on CNN every 30 minutes spinning the British withdrawal and timetable-- just as Bush is trying to convince Americans he needs to send more and more and more Americans into the conflict. She sounds like she's holding back tears and I'm not sure if anyone has told her that Denmark and Lithuania have also announced that they're getting their troops the hell out of Iraq too. Cheney and other Republican spinners are also touting this as a success. Will these guys ever stop lying? What about when they're under oath and on the stand?

WHO'S THE UGLIEST BIGOT OF THEM ALL, MR. DONAHUE?

You didn't hear a peep from DWT during that whole brouhaha about Edwards and his bloggers and that neo-fascist Donahue fellow they role out whenever they want to accuse anyone whose isn't on the extreme right of anti-Catholic bigotry. (When it comes to the extreme right, you never hear much from Donahue or his propaganda shop. Although right-wing lunatic fringe congresswoman Michele Bachmann belongs to a viciously anti-Catholic cult which considers to Catholic Pope to be the anti-Christ as part of its basic doctrine, one never hears a word from Donahue about Bachmann's bigotry. I bet you don't wonder why that is, do you?)

But Donahue doesn't have to go sniffing around the backwoods of Minnesota to find right wing bigotry. He must have a mirror in his cell, no? Or down the hall? Oh, I forgot... he draws $300,000 a year from his own little cult set-up so he probably doesn't live in a cell-- and surely does have a mirror he can peer into if he wants to really appraise some hard core bigotry.

But we'll give him a little reminder anyway. For some reason ex-GOP congressloon/possible murderer Joe Scarborough insists on portraying Donahue as a legitimate spokesperson for mainstream Catholicism, even though he's just another extremist cult nutcase. These are all quotes from William Donahue of the fascist-oriented Catholic League made on Scarborough's MSNBC Republican propaganda platform:

"People don't trust the Muslims when it comes to liberty." (February 10, 2006)

"Name for me a book publishing company in this country, particularly in New York, which would allow you to publish a book which would tell the truth about the gay death style." (December 20, 2004)

"The gay community has yet to apologize to straight people for all the damage that they have done." (April 12, 2005)

"Dean Hamer came up with this idea of the gay gene. I remember when that conversation was going on. Gays were all of a sudden worrying if people would start aborting kids when they found out the DNA suggested the kid might be gay or God forbid, we'd run out of little gay kids, so all of a sudden, they became pro-life. (December 14, 2004)

"I'm saying if a Catholic votes for Kerry because they support him on abortion rights, that is to cooperate in evil." (December 20, 2004)

"We've already won. Who really cares what Hollywood thinks? All these hacks come out there. Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular. It's not a secret, OK? And I'm not afraid to say it. ...Hollywood likes anal sex. They like to see the public square without nativity scenes. I like families. I like children. They like abortions. I believe in traditional values and restraint. They believe in libertinism. We have nothing in common. But you know what? The culture war has been ongoing for a long time. Their side has lost." (December 20, 2004)

"Well, look, there are people in Hollywood, not all of them, but there are some people who are nothing more than harlots. They will do anything for the buck. They wouldn't care. If you asked them to sodomize their own mother in a movie, they would do so, and they would do it with a smile on their face." (February 10, 2006)

"Well, first they said it [The Passion of the Christ] was anti-Semitic. That didn't work. Then they said it was too violent. That didn't work. Then they said it was S & M. That didn't work. Then they said it was pornography. That didn't work. Now they're saying it's fascistic queer-bashing. That kind of language would ordinarily get somebody taken away in a straitjacket and-- put you in the asylum. I don't know what about-- the queer-bashing is all about. I'm pretty good about picking out who queers are and I didn't see any in the movie. I'm usually pretty good at that." (March 12, 2004)

"The fact of the matter is the media elite have an aversion to religion. Some of them even have a phobia and some of them are obviously anti-religion. ...They want Tom, Dick, and Harry to get married. They want 'under God' out of the pledge of allegiance. They don't want anybody to see The Passion of the Christ. It's all tied together." (February 24, 2004)

BUSH 2008 BUDGET FOR DUMMIES (LIKE BUSH)

I want to recommend the column Matt Taibbi did on Bush's 2008 budget. If your eyes just glazed over at the word "budget," at least read this quick take:

If Bush and the Republicans get their way and the Estate Tax is completely repealed, the estimated savings to just one family-- the Walton family, heirs to the Wal-Mart fortune and major GOP political donors-- would be about $32.7 billion dollars over the next ten years, just slightly more than the $28 billion cut to Medicaid Bush is proposing for the same time period.

If you ever voted for a Republican you deserve this and I hope you get it-- as long as no one who never voted for a Republican doesn't. Read Mark's column; he has all the richest Republican donor families and how much they get out of this-- and what social programs get gutted to pay for the strengthening of an American aristocracy. OK, that'll be the last mention of a budget from me today.

WHO WAS SUPPOSED TO TEACH GEORGE BUSH ABOUT HISTORY? SOMEONE? ANYONE?

Yesterday I woke up and switched on CNN and soon heard the excruciatingly grating voice of that whiny, defensive wimp who lives in the White House, winking and nodding at NeoConfederates about how President's Day is still Washington's Birthday to him. Isn't that sweet... that a so-called president is either so stupid or so sectarian as to insult the memory of America's most beloved president by pandering to his own KKK dead-ender supporters about President's Day. I remember how disappointing it was when I was in elementary school to find out about how we'd no longer get Feb. 12 (Lincoln's birthday) and Feb. 22 (Washington's birthday) off but that they'd be combined into a celebration of both presidents' birthdays. Leave to Bush to politicize this on TV with a creepy leer to the hateful 20-odd percent of Americans who can still stand him.

But thinking about our first president, and the nearly miraculous accomplishment he and our other Founding Fathers achieved, made me realize how important it is for voters to try harder to choose educated and intelligent leaders instead of self-satisfied dolts and learning-disabled imbeciles like Bush. It isn't likely that Bush could ever imagine that there is a legitimate analogy to be made with the struggle of what he calls "the terrorists" in Iraq with the struggles of the North American colonists in the eighteenth century attempting to evict a foreign military from their homeland.

Reading today's newspapers-- and most days'-- it is very possible to see an heroic struggle for freedom and independence a society is fighting against an alien invader. The alien invader? Us. Can you blame Iraq for wanting us out? Think about it. Would you like hundreds of thousands of cocky young soldiers-- some even criminals dragged into the military-- from an entirely different culture-- unable and mostly unwilling to understand our own or speak our language, or, in many cases, to even consider us human-- running around in our cities-- and accompanied, in some cases by vicious, murderous and malevolent mercenaries with no accountability structure whatsoever? The American colonists didn't like it and were willing to risk their lives to end it. I would do the same today. And so are the Iraqis.

It's what happens in all colonial wars. It's what happened in Vietnam. It's why the U.S. will be ignominiously defeated in Iraq. It's why we shouldn't elect incompetent morons to the presidency. There are Iraqis who will fight to the death to regain freedom-- freedom from foreign occupiers and their puppet collaborators-- and the U.S. with withdraw. When the mass media chastised Barack Obama for pointing out that our young men and women killed there had died in vain, they were merely pushing the nationalistic, militaristic far right memes that help keep Bush Regime monstrosities in power. Much of the coporate media reflexively assumes this goal. Today's Wall Street Journal warns Democrats (and Republicans awakening to the catastrophe Bush has brought down on our heads) not to "embrace defeat." Who did you root for in Star Wars? World War II? V FOR VENDETTA?

COLEEN ROWLEY ENDORSES AL FRANKEN

In the last election cycle no one was a better choice among the non-politician citizens running for Congress than Coleen Rowley. The communities at Firedoglake, Crooks & Liars and Down With Tyranny that make up Blue America contributed over $22,000 in small donations to her first campaign to take a seat from right wing extremist John Kline. Kline spent a million and a half dollars to retain his suburban/exurban seat south of the Twin Cities and Coleen spent less than half that. Coleen was the original candidate for whom we did the "Have You Had Enough?" customized song and video and her live blog session at Firedoglake still stands as a classic in grassroots journalism.


I've been urging Coleen to run again next year. She pats me kindly on the head and laughs. Apparently she hasn't given up on politics entirely because this morning when I woke up she had written this endorsement of Al Franken for us:

AL FRANKEN-- THE REAL DEAL

by Coleen Rowley

I just checked off every volunteer activity from envelope stuffing to door knocking for Al Franken, who I hope will defeat one of the country's most consummate politicians (and also one of the country's most vulnerable Republicans), Norm Coleman, to become Minnesota's next U.S. Senator.

That means no matter how risqué or avant garde a comedy skit featuring Mr. Franken may surface in the next 20 or so months, he's going to keep my support. (That ethics-preaching, prudish FBI agent side of me who never much cared for "Saturday Night Live" will just have to look the other way.)

Now, you might suspect this early pledge of loyalty was won because Mr. Franken helped my own campaign for congress last year. But that isn't the reason. I do have a couple funny stories about his help last year, one involving a lesson in Yiddish pronunciation, which maybe I'll tell you about later. But Mr. Franken certainly did not have to move back to Minnesota and begin working as hard as he did, crisscrossing the state in the year prior to the 2006 election, on behalf of a whole bunch of us Democratic candidates for state and federal offices.

And it's not because Mr. Franken is one of the smartest Harvard graduates there is having availed himself of discussion these last few years on his daily Air America radio show of the most important issues facing the country with national leaders and policy experts.

It's not because he was often able to write and say things through clever use of humor that so many others couldn't or wouldn't say. I'll never forget stopping in my tracks in the doorway at Mystic Lake Casino (in Shakopee, Minnesota) the first time I heard Mr. Franken at the podium after a conference lunch in fall of 2005. I had not planned to stay for his talk and was trying to sneak out but stopped when I heard him start to sarcastically but accurately dissect the tangled e-mail trail of the Abramoff-Scanlon-Reed influence peddling that had defrauded certain Indian tribes. He was nailing the culture of corruption almost before anyone knew it was out there.

It's not because he has a good stump speech. Ya know the first thing they teach you in these political training exercises is you have to come up with some heartfelt personal story that ties in with why you are running. In the last couple years, I think I've heard them all and I've heard many (including Franken's) repeatedly. Politicos swear by these stump speeches but it's hard for them not to come off rehearsed and fakey-sounding. Mr. Franken's personal story is from the heart and rings as true as Paul Wellstone’s (whose seat is the one Franken happens to be seeking).

Finally, my support for Al Franken is certainly not because he's got the makings of a good politician. It's funny but the bulk of the press coverage these first few days of his candidacy have focused almost solely on how inexperienced a politician he is. Here's what I say. If you want political experience, just vote for Norm Coleman. Coleman has been running for one political office or another since his college days. He's even run in both parties, as both a Democrat and a Republican. Coleman's served as everything from mayor to senator with a try for governor in between. So if you want a politician with experience (as well as real bright white teeth), Norm would be your guy. My bet is Mr. Franken is not going to try to compete with Norm Coleman as a political animal. And no one wants him to.

Nope. It's not for any of these sophisticated reasons that I support Mr. Franken. I don't make snap judgments about anyone, much less anyone running for a political office. In fact, after all I was exposed to these last couple years, my cynicism antenna goes up even higher with those running for political office. But Al Franken has impressed me for all and none of the above reasons as the real deal. It's that simple. And with genuineness and authenticity in such short supply, I think it might be the only criteria that matters anymore. So any future ax murders notwithstanding, Al Franken will get not only my vote but all my envelope stuffing and door knocking too.

One piece of advice I got a chance to blurt out ahead of time to him was "don't lose your sense of humor." For if Al Franken, of all people, suddenly becomes all serious and boring and political, it would be nothing but a fakey makeover. He'd lose his authenticity. Plus there's no doubt he's going to need that good sense of humor to get through the next 20 some months.


PREDATE: BEST AL FRANKEN INTERVIEW TO DATE

The Minnesota Campaign Report published the ultimate Al Franken interview a few days ago that I've been meaning to recommend.

CAN AN HONEST MAN WIN THE GOP PRIMARY AND STILL BE JUDGED SANE ENOUGH TO WIN THE GENERAL ELECTION?

Three Republican politicians who have always acted as though coming across as moderates-- at least image-wise-- are facing up to the realities of GOP presidential primary politics. If you think Republicans who vote in the general election are right-wing, aside from being correct, you should also imagine the politics of the hard core base Republicans who vote in that party's primaries. To appeal to the voters in Republican primaries you are appealing to many folks who feel perfectly at home with a total top down authoritarian-- if not a fascist or even monarchial-- approach to government.

Suddenly you find McCain, Giuliani and Romney, all of whom owe some of their success to the careful nurturing of a moderate image distinct from the radical right, racing each other to the extreme edges of the Republican spectrum. Although McCain's well-honed p.r. machine has always prided itself on passing him off-- disingenuously-- as a moderate, he has the voting record that really does prove that he is and always has been-- regardless of the hype-- a right wing nut. He hopes to overcome his reputation as a loose cannon and a short-triggered powder keg by screaming his right wing record from the roof tops, something neither Romney nor Giulinai can do (at least not with straight faces).

Today McCain was trolling for votes in ultra right-wing South Carolina and he decided to run to the right of Bush on Iraq. He points out that the reason for the mess in Iraq is not because it was a mistake to invade Iraq but because the Bush Regime has mismanaged the whole mess for years. "We are paying a very heavy price for the mismanagement-- that's the kindest word I can give you-- of Donald Rumsfeld, of this war." The audience applauded when McCain said "I think that Donald Rumsfeld will go down in history as one of the worst secretaries of defense in history." (Expect Fox News to start identifying Rumsfeld soon with a "Democrat" chiron.)

An A.P. report today illustrated why this is a problem for McCain, who is quickly painting himself as the most flip-floppin' guy to ever run for president.

The comments were in sharp contrast to McCain's statement when Rumsfeld resigned in November, and failed to address the reality that President Bush is the commander in chief.
"While Secretary Rumsfeld and I have had our differences, he deserves Americans' respect and gratitude for his many years of public service," McCain said last year when Rumfeld stepped down.

It's even harder for Romney and Giuliani to make GOP primary voters to think they're right-wing enough. Today the Boston Globe points to long time gun-control advocate Romney trying to make nice with NRA fanatics.

Mitt Romney, who has touted his support of gun owners since launching his presidential campaign, yesterday acknowledged he did not become a member of the National Rifle Association until last August, campaign officials said.

A former advocate of gun control, Romney during his 1994 run for the US Senate backed measures the gun-rights group opposed, such as a five-day waiting period on gun sales and a ban on certain assault weapons.

The former Massachusetts governor has been criticized for changing his positions to appeal to social conservatives voting in Republican primaries. In a nationally broadcast interview yesterday, he also had to explain his switch to a conservative stance on abortion and why he once voted for Democrats in Massachusetts primaries...

Not all gun advocates are convinced of Romney's commitment to their cause.
"His past votes have been anti-gun and I feel like it may just be a campaign strategy that we're not going to fall for," said Gerald Stoudemire, president of Gun Owners of South Carolina, an NRA state association. "I've never seen a politician change their way of thinking 180 degrees, except when they were running for office."

I'm sure Giuliani has a braintrust working on how he's going to explain his career-long support for abortion, gays and gun-control once low-information Republican voters figure it out. For his sake, let's hope they are also coming up with answers to questions about why he has been photographed dressed in women's clothes in public at least a dozen times, especially now that he is being supported by several high profile Republican gay politicos like David Dreier and Ken Mehlman.


UPDATE: REPUBLICAN COO-COO CORPS FINDS ANOTHER REASON TO HATE CRAZY OLD McCAIN

It was all over CNN when I woke up this morning-- McCain, flip-floppin' again, blames the Bush Regime for the disaster in Iraq. All we need to win is to send more troops. That's going to be the end of the road for the senile old warmonger with normal Americans. But the far right is even more pissed off than the rest of us. Extremist right bloggers are spinning out of control this morning. "Whatever causes McCain to come up with his talking points, or if they are points off the cuff, they're wrong. And the man is getting annoying to have around. He should go back to the Senate and perform his job, ensuring victory in Iraq. His campaign for the Presidency is going to be a well-deserved rout. He has nothing to offer. We need to look forward, not back." See? Just because the Extreme Right Blogosphere shills for the Regime 24/7 doesn't mean they are always wrong about everything.

DAVID DREIER (R-CA) COMES OUT OF THE CLOSET ABOUT WHY HE HEARTS RUDY

In the last few weeks DWT has looked into the question of what the Republican closet queens contingent will be doing about the '08 presidential race. At a recent panel discussion I was on, one participant, a friend of Drudge's, abandoned his lionizing of icons Anna Nicole Smith and Paris Hilton to wax semi-eloquent about the attributes of Mitt Romney's rugged good looks and penis. (I had no idea-- and I'm sure you didn't either-- but apparently on the furthest reaches of the far gay right the dimensions of Mitt's member are under as intense contemplation as are the attributes of Anna Nicole's breasts and whatever it is people attribute to Ms. Hilton. I was assured that if I would only run a photo, DWT traffic would explode.)

Louisiana gay blade (hysterically closeted, of course; even married his secretary after getting caught in the act a few years back) Jimmy McCrery didn't have to wait for no stinkin' picture of Mitt's thing to sign on. This man, like many Republicans, is consumed with Faith. But Giuliani, who may not be gay-- or as endowed as Romney is supposed to be-- but would certainly be the first transvestite to live in the White House were he to be elected, has landed an even bigger gay fish than McCrery. California's gayest closet case, Rep. David Dreier, has come out for Rudy. We already knew that, of course. But on Friday, he explained why he's on Rudy's team. And it wasn't because of Giuliani's sartorial prowess.

He told MSNBC GOP propagandist Tucker Carlson that "This really comes down to one simple and basic thing, and I can really put it in what I would call a congressional bumper sticker. ...Rudy Giuliani, the man who got rid of those squeegee guys at 51st and Lexington. ...If he could do that, we know he can win the war on terror." We do? Oh, maybe the "we" only includes people like Tucker and Dreier, not normal Americans who take this kind of thing a bit more... seriously.

Actually some right wingers are taking this whole thing more seriously too and they're fed up seeing a small handful of Republicans starting to come to their senses after 6 years of Bush's neverneverland. Far right fanatic Hugh Hewitt is thundering over there that he's going to get primary challenges going against all the Republicans who voted with the Democrats (and 70% of the American people) to ask Bush to reconsider further escalating his Iraq catastrophe. They even started a website to start collecting money to challenge Republicans like Florida Republican Ric Keller who voted against Bush last week. By 2025, if things pick up a bit, they may raise $75.00.

Hewitt calls the non-comatose Republicans "The GOP Surrender Caucus" and he and his fellow far right bloggers are on the warpath against, aside from Keller, Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD), James Walsh (R-NY), Walter Jones (R-NC), Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD), Michael Castle (R-DE), Philip English (R-PA), Ronald Paul (R-TX), Frederick Upton (R-MI), Thomas Davis (R-VA), Mark Kirk (R-IL), Howard Coble (R-NC), John Duncan (R-TN), James Ramstad (R-MN), and Steven LaTourette (R-OH). Perhaps the DCCC could help them along, especially with destined-for-defeat Republicans like Kirk, LaTourette, Davis, English, and Walsh.

Hewitt published an e-mail to Keller from a right-wing nut purporting to live in his district: "Your pandering to short term, media driven, popular opinion does not win any points with educated and thinking constituents like myself. I will under no circumstances cast a vote to send you back to congress in 2008 and very much look forward to supporting a primary challenger to supplant you. I have never spent a dime to support a political candidate, but I definitely will now-- for your future opponent." Let's just hope he represents a groundswell of loons and isn't just one lone nut.

IS THERE ANY POLITICIAN AS INHERENTLY DISHONEST AS JOHN McCAIN ANYWHERE IN AMERICA... IN EITHER POLITICAL PARTY?

Although McCain's Doubletalk Express has been huffing and puffing all weekend about how he will never change his mind about expanding the war in the Middle East, he has been busy sewing confusion among voters on another political football: Women's Choice. Yesterday's Washington Post article on hard right John McCain is quite a bit different from an older Post article about moderate John McCain softening his position on abortion. That John McCain-- "But certainly in the short term, or even the long term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations"-- is a lot different from the radical right wing fanatic who showed up in South Carolina this weekend hustling for votes among the Neocons and the Neo-Confederates.

Don't ask me why but Friday I went over a new Fox "News"/Opinion Dynamics poll conducted February 13 and 14. Asked to choose between Giuliani and McCain, Republican respondents, picked Giuliani by a resounding 56% to 31%. Another question that was asked-- of all participants, not just the Republicans-- was designed to find out if voters know the positions each candidate takes on Choice. A plurality of voters simply don't know, but 19% think Giuliani is anti-choice and 37% say (correctly) that he is pro-choice. In McCain's case, the majority don't know where he stands, while 35% identify him (correctly) as anti-choice and 12% think he is pro-choice.

Between June, 2002 and June 2005, John McCain has voted on Choice-related legislation 15 times. Unlike GOP senatorial collegaues Kay Bailey Hutchison, Lisa Murkowski, John Warner, Ted Stevens, Areln Specter, Susan Collins, and Olympia Snowe-- all of whom have voted at least once in a progressive way on choice-- McCain, like the rest of the Republican caucus, has voted against Choice at every single opportunity.

Still, you can't blame 65% of Americans either saying McCain is pro-Choice or that they don't know what his position is on the issue. That's because his p.r. machine has carefully crafted an image for him as a moderate. It's a fake image and in his desperate bid to catch up with Giuliani among GOP primary voters, McCain has unmasked himself as the extremist, far right loon he's always been.

After running around Iowa all day Saturday trying to frighten easily spooked Republicans with his absurd campaign theme: "If we leave Iraq, they are going to follow us home," he hightailed it off to even more right-wing South Carolina where he further shredded his long-cherished, albeit never accurate, moderate image. In Spartanburg he tossed raw meat out to the wild-eyed extremists. "I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned."

Lately, as he's seen his numbers going further and further south among Republican voters, who now favor Giuliani over him by a wide double digit margin, McCain has moved further and further to the extreme right on every single issue. To counter far right Republican religionist James Dobson, who said he would never consider voting for McCain under any circumstances, he is now coming out as the anti-sex candidate. He attends abstinence-only rallies on the campaign trail and backed away from a more Libertarian position that says it's none of the government's business if same sex couples want to marry each other.

Whether people see McCain as a hypocrite, an opportunist, a liar-- or just confused with the onset of senility-- no one can possibly mix him up with anyone promising the straight talk that he once vowed he'd always deliver to Americans. Now he's just another grubby political hack, scurrying around looking for votes wherever he can get them, no matter what he has to say or do. John McCain has transformed himself into one of the most reprehensible creatures on the contemporary American political landscape. And you thought it would never get worse than Bush?

ABOUT THE ART: No, Jesus' General has not replaced Adam as DWT Art Director; it only looks that way.

Quote of the day: Paul Krugman puts his finger on why it's so alarming that Hillary Clinton refuses to admit error in her vote authorizing war in Iraq

"For the last six years we have been ruled by men who are pathologically incapable of owning up to mistakes. And this pathology has had real, disastrous consequences."
--Paul Krugman, explaining one reason why John Edwards' admitting error and Hillary Clinton's refusal to do so matters, in his NYT column today, "Wrong Is Right"

President Bush awards Presidential Medals of Freedom
to George Tenet, Tommy Franks and L. Paul Bremer

"The experience of Bush-style governance," writes Krugman in this really terrific column, "together with revulsion at the way Karl Rove turned refusal to admit error into a political principle, is the main reason those now-famous three words from Mr. Edwards--'I was wrong'--matter so much to the Democratic base."

But there's another reason, and it causes Krugman even more concern with regard to Hillary Clinton's refusal to admit error: "Although she's smart and sensible, she's very much the candidate of the Beltway establishment--an establishment that has yet to come to terms with its own failure of nerve and judgment over Iraq." (For more on Hillary as the candidate of the Beltway insiders, see Howie's post yesterday.)

New York Times
February 19, 2007
Op-Ed Columnist

Wrong Is Right
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Many people are perplexed by the uproar over Senator Hillary Clinton's refusal to say, as former Senator John Edwards has, that she was wrong to vote for the Iraq war resolution. Why is it so important to admit past error? And yes, it was an error--she may not have intended to cast a vote for war, but the fact is the resolution did lead to war; she may not have believed that President Bush would abuse the power he was granted, but the fact is he did.

The answer can be summed up in two words: heckuva job. Or, if you want a longer version: Medals of Freedom to George Tenet, who said Saddam had W.M.D., Tommy Franks, who failed to secure Iraq, and Paul Bremer, who botched the occupation.

For the last six years we have been ruled by men who are pathologically incapable of owning up to mistakes. And this pathology has had real, disastrous consequences. The situation in Iraq might not be quite so dire--and we might even have succeeded in stabilizing Afghanistan--if Mr. Bush or Vice President Dick Cheney had been willing to admit early on that things weren't going well or that their handpicked appointees weren't the right people for the job.

The experience of Bush-style governance, together with revulsion at the way Karl Rove turned refusal to admit error into a political principle, is the main reason those now-famous three words from Mr. Edwards--"I was wrong"--matter so much to the Democratic base.

The base is remarkably forgiving toward Democrats who supported the war. But the base and, I believe, the country want someone in the White House who doesn't sound like another George Bush. That is, they want someone who doesn't suffer from an infallibility complex, who can admit mistakes and learn from them.

And there's another reason the admission by Mr. Edwards that he was wrong is important. If we want to avoid future quagmires, we need a president who is willing to fight the inside-the-Beltway conventional wisdom on foreign policy, which still--in spite of all that has happened--equates hawkishness with seriousness about national security, and treats those who got Iraq right as somehow unsound. By admitting his own error, Mr. Edwards makes it more credible that he would listen to a wider range of views.

In truth, it's the second issue, not the first, that worries me about Mrs. Clinton. Although she's smart and sensible, she's very much the candidate of the Beltway establishment--an establishment that has yet to come to terms with its own failure of nerve and judgment over Iraq. Still, she's at worst a triangulator, not a megalomaniac; she's not another Dick Cheney.

I wish we could say the same about all the major presidential aspirants.

Senator John McCain, whose reputation for straight talk is quickly getting bent out of shape, appears to share the Bush administration's habit of rewriting history to preserve an appearance of infallibility.

Last month Senator McCain asserted that he knew full well what we were getting into by invading Iraq: "When I voted to support this war," Mr. McCain said on MSNBC, "I knew it was probably going to be long and hard and tough, and those that voted for it and thought that somehow it was going to be some kind of an easy task, then I'm sorry they were mistaken."

But back in September 2002, he told Larry King, "I believe that the operation will be relatively short," and "I believe that the success will be fairly easy."

And as for Rudy Giuliani, there are so many examples of his inability to accept criticism that it's hard to choose.

Here's an incident from 1997. When New York magazine placed ads on city buses declaring that the publication was "possibly the only good thing in New York Rudy hasn't taken credit for," the then-mayor ordered the ads removed--and when a judge ordered the ads placed back on, he appealed the decision all the way up to the United States Supreme Court.

Now imagine how Mr. Giuliani would react on being told, say, that his choice to head Homeland Security is actually a crook. Oh, wait.

But back to Mrs. Clinton's problem. For some reason she and her advisers failed to grasp just how fed up the country is with arrogant politicians who can do no wrong. I don't think she falls in that category; but her campaign somehow thought it was still a good idea to follow Karl Rove's playbook, which says that you should never, ever admit to a mistake. And that playbook has led them into a political trap.

SO... WHY DOESN'T REID LET THEM FILIBUSTER THEIR ASSES OFF-- 'TIL THEY START DROPPING DEAD FROM HEART ATTACKS?

If you’re hoping to get an answer to the question in the post’s headline... Well, so am I.

My knowledge of filibustering comes from long-ago high school Social Studies classes, from Jimmy Stewart’s heroic stemwinder in Mr. Smith Goes To Washington, and from its rare use in real life.

The always maybe-somewhat-accurate Wikipedia tells us that "filibuster" comes from a Spanish word, filibustero, literally meaning a pirate. To filibuster is to hijack a debate.

Traditionally this has been done by talking the subject to death. Opponents of a bill get up and talk, talk, talk, and talk some more, theoretically endlessly-- sometimes about the subject at hand, sometimes about anything at all, just to keep the subject from coming to a vote.

Strom Thurmond (then a Dixiecrat) set the all-time record for filibustering in 1957, when he spoke against the Civil Rights bill of that year-- continuously, all by himself, for over 24 hours. Thurmond prepared himself by going to the Senate steam room (who knew there was a Senate steam room?) for a long schvitz, dehydrating himself so he wouldn’t have to leave and take a pee. (Wikipedia quotes Newsweek as telling us "They used to call [filibustering] 'going to the diaper.'" Thurmond might not have been wearing one then... But by the time he became our first 100-year-old Senator... Let's not go there.)

During his 24-hour (and 18 minute) marathon, Thurmond managed to read, among other things, the Declaration of Independence, Washington’s Farewell Address, and the voting rights laws of every one of the (then) 48 states-- along with his own long-winded orations.

The only way to stop a filibuster is by a vote for cloture (which the British call, more sensibly, closure). The rules have changed over the years, but now it takes 60 votes to get cloture, stopping a filibuster and allowing a vote on the bill in question to take place.

This is the place where I get very, very confused.

This past Saturday, the Republicans killed the pathetic non-binding resolution that would have told Bush that the Senate "disapproves" of his current escalation. Tut, tut, such language! The resolution was killed when Democrats were unable to muster the 60 votes to get cloture, and so stop debate.

Here’s my question: WHAT debate?

Where’s that juicy filibuster? Why didn’t we get to see Republicans standing up in opposition to the overwhelming will of the people to stop this war? (Not that the toothless resolution would have done anything like that...)

Why weren’t they required to keep debate going by standing up there in front of America and revealing their despicable opinions, detested by the huge majority of voters? Why weren’t they forced to drone on, reading from the Bible, the phone book, or the collected made-up quotations of Abraham Lincoln?

Instead, it appears that there WAS no debate, just a vote to stop debate, which failed, after which there was no vote on the bill itself. Wha???

Even if the resolution was bound to fail, how sweet it would have been to see the Republicans make fools of themselves in front of the whole country and the world. (Well, not MAKE fools of themselves-- they did that long ago-- but to make it unmistakable to everybody except the brain-dead 30%.)

And, instead of a vote for cloture (of a non-existent debate), why couldn't the majority Democrats just push for a vote on the bill itself, which I’m assuming would have passed with only 51 votes? There were 54 votes for cloture-- how many votes would there have been for the actual resolution?

This situation reminds me of how jump balls are now decided in basketball games. When there’s a disputed possession, the ref whistles for a jump ball. But, everywhere except at the pro level, no actual jumping takes place anymore. Instead, the ball is just handed over to one of the teams, alternating through the game.

Is that how filibusters now work? We don’t bother with the actual filibuster, we just have a vote on whether or not to stop it? Again... Wha???

Is the filibuster now obsolete? If so, what a shame. No more Jimmy Stewart heroics, no more Strom Thurmond bullshit. No way for the Republicans to stand up and be exposed.

And the result of this charade is that we're treated to newspaper and TV news stories headlined "Senate Defeats Resolution." Well, no. It wasn’t the Senate, it was those fucking Republican Bushistas. And it wasn’t defeated, it was... Well, what WAS it, exactly?

I’m no parliamentarian (obviously!)-- but can some DWT readers who understand this surrealist kabuki drama please explain it to those of us in the reality-based world?

-A Guest Opinion From Woid

You need the magic number "60" to move the Senate, but did everyone notice that the actual vote for the anti-escalation resolution topped 60%?

I WANT TO URGE EVERY SINGLE DWT READER TO SUPPORT OUR TROOPS... RIGHT NOW

An old friend of mine-- a political independent from Maine-- was always spewing all this hatred for our guys in the military. He was never sympathetic to their plight and always felt that they got what they deserved. He seemed more against them than against wars or even war-makers, something that I picked up a little from Donovan's 60s cover of Buffy St. Marie's "Universal Soldier" too. I never understood it and argued about it with him over the years, but he could never quite get it through his Libertarian-oriented brain that many-- most?-- of the volunteers have been forced into the military because of bad finances and dreadful economic opportunities in their communities. My friend arrived in California from the backwoods of Maine with no money and no education and managed to finish high school, college and a masters degree on his own. His attitude is that if he can do it, everyone can. That's where he's wrong; not everyone can.

My own view was more pragmatic than my Maine friend's or Ms St. Marie's. These men and women are doing a socially legitimate job and until Man comes up with a way to make their line of work unnecessary, we should treat them with the dignity and respect anyone conscientiously doing a tough and dangerous job deserves.

When Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rove, Rumsfeld and the rest of the gang of criminals who have been at the helm of our government in these dark times are finally brought before the bar of Justice, I hope their grotesque disregard for and mistreatment of our soldiers are thoroughly examined. I think many people-- of all political stripes-- started catching on when, through the hysterical din of nationalistic palaver and warmongering, we all watched in horror as John Yoo, Alberto Gonzales, Cheney and ultimately Bush, pushed aside the Geneva Conventions, which are, after all, in place to protect all soldiers (including our own). I didn't see a single military man defend the Bush Regime on this tragic and disgraceful episode, one that, alone, should have led to his immediate impeachment. (I still think the Congress should impeach Gonzales for his role in this at once.)

Today's Washington Post paints another side, a less abstract side, of the same disrespect with which the Bush Regime misuses our military men and women. "Signs of neglect are everywhere: mouse droppings, belly-up cockroaches, stained carpets, cheap mattresses. This is the world of Building 18, not the kind of place where [Army Spec. Jeremy] Duncan expected to recover when he was evacuated to Walter Reed Army Medical Center from Iraq last February with a broken neck and a shredded left ear, nearly dead from blood loss. But the old lodge, just outside the gates of the hospital and five miles up the road from the White House, has housed hundreds of maimed soldiers recuperating from injuries suffered in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan."

That's not abstract. And the people responsible-- and responsible for making it worse and worse-- use the hateful refrain "support our troops" as a weapon against anyone who challenges the policies that have brought so many young American men and women so low. Today John Aravosis at AMERICAblog is launching a campaign to really support our troops, the actual flesh and blood soldiers, not the militaristic policies of the small clique of criminal war profiteers around Bush and Cheney.

This is beyond sickening. We have to sit back and listen to GOP members of Congress, George Bush's White House, and that pig General Petraeus dare to tell us how WE'RE the ones turning our backs on the troops, when all three of them knew this was going on under their watch and none of them lifted a finger to fix it.

Our soldiers were lied to about this war, they were lied to about their enlistment, they were never given a plan for victory or the numbers of troops they needed, they still don't have the armor they need for their vehicles. And now, the young men and women wounded and maimed for our country are living in government-run pig-stys not fit for farm animals. The American Taliban and the detainees in Guantanamo get better conditions than this, all courtesy of the Republicans.

The Republicans want to talk about treason? They want to talk about slowly bleeding our troops to death? Fine. Forget the agenda Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid had planned. It's high time we helped our troops. And if the Republicans won't do it, then we will. Let's ensure that the American people and our troops know which party got them into this mess, and which party is getting them out of it. Let the hearings and investigation and legislation begin until we fix these problems once and for all.

Jesus' General has joined Aravosis, and, in fact, his all-American patriotic site is where I found the graphic above. Bush, the most callously and viciously and criminally anti-military of any U.S. leader in American history, has replaced every general who has opposed his idiotic and destructive policies. And now he's found the perfect Republican lackey, an ambitious and fascist hack who is more at home on Fox News than on the battle field, this pathetic Petraeus-- rhymes with Betray US-- creature. While Petraeus shills for the Republican Party on Fox, wounded American troops are suffering the ultimate indignity of being treated like disposable garbage in their own country. I hope Madame DeFarge has noted down the General's name for future use.


We'll have to leave Madame DeFarge to keep track of the John Yoos and General Patraeusii for now. We we need to do right now is make sure Democratic politicians, and the Republicans who actually do care about these men and women, get off their backsides and raise and huge hue and cry over this. Please read the whole piece in the Post that I linked above and think about contacting your representatives about making this a PRIORITY. Not one day should go by while these men and women should be forced by the malevolent Bush Regime to undergo this kind of treatment. Bush should be thrown out of the White House like the stinking sack of trash he's proven himself to be-- and made to do whatever he does from his pig farm in Crawford-- in order to make room for the wounded soldiers in the Pennsylvania Avenue digs he's been disgracing for 6 years. (When your call your congressional rep, put that a little more moderately.)

HILLARY MAKES IT CLEAR: SHE'S NO FLIP FLOPPER-- SHE'S 100% INSIDE-THE-BELTWAY ESTABLISHMENT CONSULTANT-ORIENTED CAREER POL

When I woke up this morning I read two stories about Hillary Clinton, one in the Sunday Times and one in Daily Kos. Patrick Healy in the Times examines Senator Clinton's inability to back away from her October 2002 series of votes to authorize the use of force against Iraq. Ironically, no one mentions that her overall Iraq voting record is absolutely terrible. Over the past 4 years, thirty Democratic senators have voted more strenuously to oppose the Bush-Cheney Regime while Clinton is way at the bottom of the barrel with reactionaries like Max Baucus, Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln, Evan Bayh, Ben and Bill Nelson and, of course, ex-Democrat and Clinton pal, Holy Joe Lieberman.

Right from the Oct 10th vote she was firmly on the Bush bandwagon. Take a look at how she phrases her support for the Regime's plans to mount an illegal attack on a sovereign country. This is from her own official website:

I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who has tortured and killed his own people, even his own family members, to maintain his iron grip on power. He used chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds and on Iranians, killing over 20 thousand people. Unfortunately, during the 1980's, while he engaged in such horrific activity, he enjoyed the support of the American government, because he had oil and was seen as a counterweight to the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran.
In 1991, Saddam Hussein invaded and occupied Kuwait, losing the support of the United States. The first President Bush assembled a global coalition, including many Arab states, and threw Saddam out after forty-three days of bombing and a hundred hours of ground operations. The U.S.-led coalition then withdrew, leaving the Kurds and the Shiites, who had risen against Saddam Hussein at our urging, to Saddam's revenge.
As a condition for ending the conflict, the United Nations imposed a number of requirements on Iraq, among them disarmament of all weapons of mass destruction, stocks used to make such weapons, and laboratories necessary to do the work. Saddam Hussein agreed, and an inspection system was set up to ensure compliance. And though he repeatedly lied, delayed, and obstructed the inspections work, the inspectors found and destroyed far more weapons of mass destruction capability than were destroyed in the Gulf War, including thousands of chemical weapons, large volumes of chemical and biological stocks, a number of missiles and warheads, a major lab equipped to produce anthrax and other bio-weapons, as well as substantial nuclear facilities.
In 1998, Saddam Hussein pressured the United Nations to lift the sanctions by threatening to stop all cooperation with the inspectors. In an attempt to resolve the situation, the UN, unwisely in my view, agreed to put limits on inspections of designated "sovereign sites" including the so-called presidential palaces, which in reality were huge compounds well suited to hold weapons labs, stocks, and records which Saddam Hussein was required by UN resolution to turn over. When Saddam blocked the inspection process, the inspectors left. As a result, President Clinton, with the British and others, ordered an intensive four-day air assault, Operation Desert Fox, on known and suspected weapons of mass destruction sites and other military targets.
In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the country and abroad.
In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.
It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.
Now this much is undisputed.

Really? The majority of Democrats in the House disputed them and nearly half the Democrats in the Senate did too. Hillary's problem, her consultants have made clear, is that she-- following their advice-- showed terrible judgment. But the judgment she used then is not nearly as bad as the judgment she's using today-- to follow the advice of the same Inside-the-Beltway hackish Democratic consultants, the same people who engineered the defeat of John Kerry and Al Gore and seem to be set on doing the impossible-- presiding over a Republican victory in 2008.

To these professional loser consultants saying "I was wrong" makes her a flip-flopper and... someone who made a mistake. So instead they've opted for what they did to Kerry-- making her sound insincere and someone who can't give a straight answer. This is a sure formula to turn people against her as someone who can't be trusted.


Markos shows that it is not only low-information voters who are turned off by this strategy.

Not only is the Clinton campaign pig-headed, they are also remarkably out-of-touch. They are "surprised" at the anger this war is generating? Has she been living in a cave the last four years (yes, the Senate apparently is a cave). The last thing we need in the White House is another out-of-touch, tone-deaf Bush-style presidency, unable or unwilling to admit mistakes and change course as a result.
Hillary will now see her campaign events hijacked by anti-war protesters, with people demanding she defend her vote at every corner. Iraq will dominate coverage of her campaign, and she's on the wrong side of the issue. And by going this far without admitting her mistake, she has painted herself into a corner. Any attempt now to back off and apologize would be met with the proper scorn.
For Hillary, No amount of nuance will make this issue go away.
Today she lost my potential vote. I doubt I'm the only person in this position. Thankfully, as Hillary so helpfully pointed out, the rest of the field 1) didn't make the mistake to begin with, or 2) aren't afraid to admit their mistakes.

Markos has it right. People want a straight shooter who they can trust, not someone who plays Inside-the-Beltway word games. She's coming across as one of "them," not one of "us" and, ironically, a deceitful and corrupt clown like Rudy Giuliani is coming across as more "authentic." (Today CNN had a GOP consultant on, the odious Ben Stein, who predicted that Clinton would win the Democratic nomination and then be defeated by Giuliani because Americans are looking for someone "goofy.")

LIEBERMAN TO EVERY VOTER IN CONNECTICUT: TOUGH LUCK, SUCKERS!

The Cheney Coalition in the U.S. Senate must have thrown a heck of a party last night, having won their battle to make sure there would be no vote in that body to express the will of the people's representatives that an end to the Iraq War, not an escalation to the Iraq War is what is wanted and needed in America. Only 7 Republicans-- many of them up for re-election next year-- were either wise enough, brave enough or scared enough-- to break with their reactionary leaders and vote with all the Democrats. Those Republicans, for the record were Susan Collins (up for re-election), Chuck Hagel (up for re-election), Norm Coleman (up for re-election), Olympia Snowe, Gordon Smith (up for re-election), John Warner (up for re-election) and Arlen Specter. Every Democrat voted yes except Tom Johnson who is still in the hospital.

I'd like to point out that 100% Bush supporter Holy Joe Lieberman (I-CT), who Bill Clinton campaigned for and who Bill Clinton told a national TV audience would be basically the same as the Democratic nominee, Ned Lamont, changed a life-long habit today. No he didn't change the habit of keeping his head neck deep up Cheney's ass. He changed an ostentatious affectation-- one that was on prominent display when he ran for vice president-- of never working on the Jewish Sabbath. He broke that so he could spit in the eye of every voter in Connecticut.

Keep in mind that after Lieberman was defeated in the Democratic primary, Bush, Rove and Cheney let it be known that Republicans were to vote for him as an independent candidate instead of the legitimate Republican candidate. But that wouldn't be enough votes in this blue state. So to appeal to low-information Democrats and independents Lieberman re-invented himself as an anti-war champion. Voters who hadn't paid close attention, actually thought the Senate's most bloodthirsty warmonger was as eager to end the war as Ned Lamont, something underscored by Bill Clinton's poo-pooing of the difference. Today Lieberman got to rub poo-poo in Clinton's face (again).

So what's next? Well, let me be the first to predict that Lieberman will make it official and switch his caucus-status to the Republicans, throwing control of that chamber to them. Today Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid said he's through with the symbolic nonbinding bullshit. That will be enough for Clinton's "same-thing" boy to jump over to the GOP.

AN OLD RIGHT-WING SACK OF GARBAGE DIED YESTERDAY. NOW WHAT ABOUT THE ONES WE HAVE RUNNING OUR GOVERNMENT?

Perhaps you never heard of Maurice Papon, unless you're from France. Even then you might not know who is is was. (He finally died this weekend at the age of 96. Good riddance to bad rubbish, as they say. Papon had several 15 minutes of fame. The first was during World War II while he was a high official in the collaborationist fascist government of Nazi-occupied Vichy France. The right-wing son of a wealthy bourgeois, he was as slimy then as any number of Bush Regime operatives are now. He worked with the Germans to deport over 1,500 Jewish men, women and children to Nazi death camps where they were murdered.

After it became clear the Nazis were a spent force, he ratted them out to the Resistance and after the war he took on the guise of a "respectable" center-right politician serving both De Gaulle and Valery Giscard d'Estaing (in the cabinet as Budget Minister). As head of the Paris Police Department in the 60s he ordered the Paris Massacre of 1961, although he was never charged with the deaths of the 100-200 dead civilians who were peacefully protesting the Algerian War.

In the 80s he was exposed and charged with crimes against humanity. He dodged trial for a decade but was finally dragged into court in 1997 and found guilty and sentenced to 10 years in prison. Like all right wingers who are caught at their crimes, he blamed everyone but himself and never took any responsibility for his monstrous crimes.

I'm in NYC today. Ken and I went to the Met to see an absolutely splendid performance of Jenufa by Leos Janacek. At dinner we got into a discussion of whether or not the criminals of the Bush Regime are likely to ever face trials. It's very much on my mind because I'm in the middle of Joe Conason's brilliant new book, It Can Happen Here. Conason's book has inspired me to start keeping a list of the most grievous of the criminals that have infested our government, not just Bush, Cheney, Gonzales, Rumsfeld and the best known but also less-known but no less culpable monsters very much like Monsieur Papon, characters like John Yoo, Richard Mellon Scaife, Michael Ledeen, Laurence Silberman, William Boykin, the plotters and traitors who have done our nation and our society and our whole world such immense harm. Ken says that outside of his fantasies, the chances for judicial retribution are "zero." (That's a quote.)

Maybe because my fantasies have long ago superseded trials and moved on to matters that are dangerous to discuss in public forums-- even as fantasies-- I feel more certain that there must and will be trials. I know others feel the same way. A week or two ago there was a bit of a hubbub because George Soros started the discussion of the need for a denazification type process in a post-Bush America. You can imagine who the neo-Nazi fellow travelers on the right squealed like stuck pigs at the suggestion.

But it isn't a spurious point. For America to move forward and get back on track it is important that all of us understand what happened and why it happened and that a national dialogue ensue about what we can do to make sure another episode like this can never happen again. To brush this regime's crimes under the carpet and weave them into the fabric of a legitimate, albeit mediocre presidency, would in itself be a crime. Because it can indeed happen here and we have to work hard to make sure it doesn't.

BLUE AMERICA: WHAT DO WE DO ABOUT THE NEWLY ELECTED MEMBERS?

A friend of mine, a union activist sent me something to read a few weeks ago. It sickened him and it sickened me. It paints a disturbing picture of what the idealistic freshmen class have been up to, in some cases, instead of pursuing their idealism.

Many Democratic freshmen raised tens of thousands of special-interest dollars toward their reelection even before they were sworn in for the 110th Congress.

The numbers show that although they said during their campaigns that they would reform the "culture of corruption" in Washington, many quickly immersed themselves in the town’s lobbyist-dominated fundraising network to fill up their coffers and retire their debt.

Many of us-- 581 to be exact-- contributed a little over $10,000 to Kirsten Gillibrand in the last few weeks before the November election and she beat arch corporate whore Tom Sweeney in a tough district. Since then-- even before being sworn in-- she joined both Ellen Tauscher's DLC-oriented New Democratic Coalition and the Blue Dogs. And she raised tens of thousands of dollars... from PACs and K Street lobbyists. The tobacco company Altria, for example, donated $5,000 to help her clean up her campaign debt.

Meredith McGehee, who works for the Campaign Legal Center, an advocacy group pushing for lobbying reform, said freshman lawmakers cannot do much to avoid becoming part of the system they ran to change.

"It’s next to impossible for a freshman member to arrive in Washington and not become a part of the lobbyist fundraising system," she said. "The minute you're elected, the first thing you're told is that you have to start working on your reelection because you're vulnerable. I think the current campaign-finance system makes hypocrites of all of them."

While I've been on the road-- lecturing at McGill here in Montreal-- Ken has been doing double-duty at Down With Tyranny and Thursday he ended the day with about how the Democrats are taking over the K Street franchise. But me, I'm not discouraged. In fact Meredith McGehee's "next to impossible" sounds almost encouraging... glass half full.

I'd like to propose that we see if we can help some worthy freshmen minimize the need to turn to K Street and the corporate PACs for political survival. I think I've identified 11 freshmen who are co-sponsoring anti-war legislation. In fact, one of the new freshmen, Joe Sestak (PA)-- someone we had as a guest at Firedoglake-- has proposed his own bill to bring the war to an end. The others are Patrick Murphy (PA), Steve Cohen (TN), Mazie Hirono (HI), John Yarmuth (KY), Dave Loebsack (IA), Yvette Clark (NY), Peter Welch (VT), Carol Shea-Porter (NH), Keith Ellison (MN) and Jerry McNerney (CA).

Maybe we could somehow come up with a way to help some worthy freshmen on a grassroots basis. Not all freshmen-- just the ones who are living up to our expectations... or even just most of our expectations. I was turned off when I heard how difficult the DCCC makes it for these freshmen. it looks like they may actually be forcing them into whoring themselves out into the corrupt Beltway system. Should I invite a couple of them on for a session? Does someone have a better idea?

I'm proposing a few weeks of getting-to-know-you chats with the DCCC, a chance for our community to get a communications channel open with Chris Van Hollen, the DCCC political director, Jon Vogel, maybe some of the regional directors so we can get a better understanding of how they work and what is behind decisions that sometimes look strange to some of us. It's shaping up... a little slowly but it is coming together. Meanwhile I'd love to get some feedback on what to do about the freshmen.

WHY DOES JIM MARSHALL (D-GA) HATE AMERICA AND LOVE DICK CHENEY?

There were 74 votes in the House and Senate between October 10, 2002 (the 4 shameful, infamous Authorization for the Use of Force Against Iraq roll calls) and 2006. The Democrats haven't exactly been superstars in the defense of our country against the creep of internal fascism and external militarism-- unless you contrast them with the supine, rubber stamp Republicans. Even then, though, there are some Democrats who have been as bad as some Republicans. Ron Paul, a Texas Libertarian/Republican, for example, has voted better than 20 Democrats overall. And yesterday, Paul and 16 of his GOP colleagues crossed the aisle and voted for America instead of for Bush and Cheney and the Republican leadership and their harebrained schemes to expand the disastrous Iraq war. Although some of the Republicans who joined all but 2 Democrats in passing the nonbinding symbolic resolution against the escalation, surely believed it was the right thing to do-- like Paul and North Carolina Congressman Walter Jones-- many are just frightened, shallow wingnuts with no convictions except the basic one about wanting to be re-elected next year in a moderate and very anti-war district-- like Phil English (PA), Tom Davis (VA), Bob Inglis (SC), Wayne Gilchrest (MD), James Walsh (NY), and Mike Castle (DE), each of whom expects a tough battle for re-election and none of whom has ever voted at variance-- not even once-- with the Bush Iraq line.

At least some of the 17 Republicans who abandoned their reactionary, warmongering leaders yesterday had voted two or even three times since 2002, among the dozens of votes taken regarding Iraq, against the Bush Regime. Now what about the 2 Democrats, Jim Marshall (GA) and Gene Taylor (MS) who crossed the aisle in the other direction and voted with the Bush Regime yesterday? Jim Marshall has been Bush's biggest supporter among Democrats on all matters Iraq, the very worst of a couple of dozen Democrats who have tended to support the Regime again and again and again. He's in a very solid Republican district. So is Taylor, who has been nearly as bad. Both have voted more frequently with Bush on Iraq policies than has Ron Paul (R-TX), but both have been less reactionary than every other Republican in the House.

Yesterday the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee announced its Front Line Program, which helps endangered incumbents retain their seats through large infusions of campaign donations solicited from Democratic contributors. Last year Jim Marshall was one of those recipients but somehow the DCCC forgot to inform Democrats that Marshall has a marked tendency to vote with Republicans, not just on Iraq, but on almost all crucial, core, substantive issues. He's on the list again this year. When you donate to the DCCC, you donate to Bush Iraq War enabler Jim Marshall.

Today I got a solicitation e-mail from the DCCC bragging about how the party has kept so many promises-- Speaker Pelosi's First 100 Hours Agenda (much of it still languishing in the Senate, none of it signed into law by Bush)-- and then going on to discuss the Iraq situation and see what contributions they could wring out of low-information voters in regard to that "great legislative victory."

This week, House Democrats fulfilled another promise-- to hold an honest and open debate on the war in Iraq and to hold the Bush Administration accountable for its mismanagement of the Iraq war.

United in support for our troops who are bravely serving in Iraq, Democrats voted today to oppose the President's escalation plan. Republicans simply Rubber Stamped the President's Iraq policy and refused to hold the Bush Administration accountable for its failures in Iraq.

Given the chance to stand up for our troops and ask the tough questions that have long gone unasked and unanswered, Republicans used their time for more hollow partisan attacks and stay the course rhetoric.

Baseless and distorting, Republicans offered up nothing more than shameless name calling:

"...History will not focus on your voting for the resolution authorizing the force, but they will long remember you unleashing the hell that is going to come in Iraq by voting for this resolution." (Rep. Latham, IA-04)

"Congressmen who willfully take action during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs, and should be arrested, exiled or hanged." (Rep. Young, AK-AL)

Democrats want to move us in a new direction-- and are working everyday to make that a reality. The days of the Rubber Stamp Congress are behind us and the Democratic Majority is demanding a plan, accountability and answers.

Our newly elected members spoke honestly about the change they are bringing to Washington:

"Walking in my own combat boots, I saw first hand this Administration's failed policy in Iraq. I led convoys up and down "Ambush Alley" in a Humvee without doors-- convoys that Americans still run today because too many Iraqis are still sitting on the sidelines ...We must make Iraqis stand up for Iraq-- and set a timeline to start bringing our heroes home." (Rep. Murphy, PA-08)

"We can and must do better by our soldiers... Our soldiers are trained to fulfill their mission without question. We as civilian leaders have a duty to question it on their behalf. For the past four years this Republican-led Congress has failed in their duty." (Rep. Walz, MN-01)

"If my 31 years in the military taught me anything, it was that we serve in this all-volunteer military to defend Americans' freedom to think as they please and to say what they think, even if they disagree with their leaders..."(Rep. Sestak, PA-07)

Our troops and our country deserve better than the Republicans' stay the course strategy. As this debate ends, I can assure you the conversation is only just beginning. I hope you continue to stay with us.

Forget, at least for a moment, the inappropriateness of the DCCC calling attention to the severe dementia being suffered by the poor old codger who disgraces the state of Alaska every time he opens his trap. Instead, ask yourself whether of not there is truth in advertising if the DCCC is asking for contributions based on standing up against Bush Regime Iraq initiatives and then funneling that money into the campaign of Jim Marshall, someone who supports those initiatives and did so again yesterday in regard to the specific congressional action being touted by the Democrats.

FLYING IN THE AGE OF BUSH

My guess-- and it's only a wild guess-- is that 99.9% of Americans have never flown on a private jet. Before I was running a blog I was running a corporate record label and our parent corporation had several jets, some real nice ones too. I suspect I was the only division head who never ordered one. I never; not once. Oh, I didn't mind flying on them. The convenience was almost otherworldly and that was even before the Bush Regime's authoritarian essence made the entire public flying experience-- starting with the degrading cattle lines and stripping at airports-- into a dehumanizing nightmare with kafkaesque overtones. But I always thought private jets were an unacceptable expense... comfortable but an unfair burden on the shareholders. So I would happily catch a lift on someone else's ride but I'd fly commercial, no matter how great the inconvenience-- which was never more than a tiny fraction of what the inconvenience has become since the Bush clique took over.

This last week I did a lot of flying-- from L.A. to Montreal to New York-- and there are no blogger private jets in my life. Let me hold back on the entire day wasted in an airport while the airline lied to us over and over about when the flight would take off. That was a special event related to weather, badly handled, of course, but... like I said, "special." The highhanded nature of the corporations who have license to act like our lords and masters under Bushism, however, is far from special or weather-related. What it's related to is the nature of fascism. But the thoughts on flying in the Age of Bush I had in mind were far more prosaic than the nature of fascism.

Thinking about the gross inconvenience we are subjected to and the entire dehumanizing process that commercial flying has become I realized that part of the problem is that so many of our leaders don't fly commercial. From what I've read Tom DeLay wasn't as reticent as I was about ordering corporate jets to haul his ass around the country world. And Denny Hastert had his own, courtesy of the taxpayers-- although who knew until the right wing noise machine decided to make the Speaker's fancy prerogative into a weapon with which to attack Nancy Pelosi?

Does it cost the taxpayers anything for our noble legislators to be taxied hither and thither in corporate jets? Yeah; believe me, those $50,000 cross country trips on corporate jets are not-- let me repeat: not done as a public service. Are they a quid pro quo? You bet they are, at least in the long run-- and we pay... through the nose. I don't like the idea of Congress making the rules that govern their own conduct and I don't like Congress-- let alone this monarchial executive branch-- making rules governing ours when their own rules are so completely... what was that word I used? Otherworldly. What do Cheney or Bush know about flying commercial? A lot less than Bush's father knew about a checkout scanner I'll guess.

Thursday Barbara Boxer and Rep. Mike Thompson (D-CA) announced they would be introducing an air passengers' bill of rights. I'm a little skeptical but not closed minded.

On Wednesday, hundreds of JetBlue passengers were grounded for up to 11 hours at JFK International Airport in New York as a result of snow and ice. The airline said it canceled more than half of 505 flights, but some were left on runways and could not return to gates because they were occupied. JetBlue officials apologized and called the delays "unacceptable."

In a statement issued Thursday, Boxer said she has been delayed many times while traveling to and from California.

"But to keep passengers-- which usually include infants and the elderly-- on a plane for 11 hours in the worst of conditions is absurd," she said. "If a plane is stuck on the tarmac or at the gate for hours, a passenger should have the right to deplane. No one should be held hostage on an aircraft when clearly they can find a way to get people off safely."

The impetus for this, though, is a bottom-up initiative that started as a petition drive online. Take a look at the simple petition which is even less burdensome than the nonbinding symbolic legislation passed in the House yesterday against Bush's latest Iraq escalation.

Every time I'm on one of those slow, endless lines-- like at Oakland Airport, which can be particularly heinous-- I always wonder if the end of the Bush Regime will also be the end of the draconian so-called "security measures," designed more to dehumanize travelers than to do anything about our security-- although, presumably, the fear and conformity advanced by these kinds of measures are supposed to insure job security for our somewhat self-imposed fascistic overlords.

I remember the first time I saw the train station in Milan. It is so grand and the proportions so Olympian. The station, at the end of a long, straight and similarly grand boulevard, made the individual feel small... very, very small, but perhaps part of something large. Like an overpowering, all-powerful fascist society. Mussolini did it with architecture. Bush does it on the cheap with endless rules and regulations that chip away at our humanity.

As Abraham Lincoln said, low-life right-wing scumbags who make up or pass on phony Lincoln quotes should be arrested, exiled or hung

QUICK QUIZ

Who said, "Congressmen who willfully take action during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs, and should be arrested, exiled or hanged"?

(a) Abraham Lincoln [right]

(b) a lying right-wing scumbag named J. Michael Waller

(c) countless scumbag pols and propagandists following in Waller's wake, who should surely be arrested, exiled or hanged

ANSWER:
All of the above except (a)

Note: Waller, when challenged, seemed surprised that quotation marks had somehow materialized around these inspirational words of his when they were printed in Insight magazine in Dec. 2003. What was in fact printed was:

"Congressmen who willfully take action during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs, and should be arrested, exiled or hanged," that's what President Abraham Lincoln said during the War Between the States.

By way of an experiment, take away the bogus quotation marks. Hmm, it still says that Lincoln said this! And thus is still a lie! Good one, Waller!

The latest in the chain of lying ding-dongs is Jack Abramoff pal Rep. Don Young, as reported by Nico at ThinkProgress.com:

Young Will Not Retract Fabricated Lincoln Quote

During yesterday’s House debate on Iraq, Rep. Don Young (R-AK) made the case for escalation by citing a fabricated quote falsely attributed to Abraham Lincoln: “Congressmen who willfully take action during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs, and should be arrested, exiled or hanged.” Watch it:

[VIDEO]

This morning, Young’s spokeswoman Meredith Kenny told ThinkProgress repeatedly that Young does not plan to take any action to correct the record or clarify his House statement.

Kenny said that Young had learned of the quote from Tuesday’s Washington Times op-ed by Frank Gaffney, and noted that the Times has not yet issued a correction or retraction. Kenny said she “couldn’t confirm or deny” that Young would correct his statement even if the Times published a correction.

Kenny added that Young didn’t literally mean that those supporting the Iraq resolution should be “hanged,” merely that they should not be “undermining the morale of our military.”

UPDATE: You can rest easy, Abe--for now

'Wash Times' Finally Pulls Column With Fake Abraham Lincoln Quote--After a Congressman Uses It

By Editor & Publisher Staff

Published: February 15, 2007 10:00 PM ET updated 3:00 PM
NEW YOR