This from Dan Abrams show last week, another example of why the poll numbers for Congress are as low as GW's if not lower:

ABRAMS: What is the reluctance, if any, do you think on the part of the House to hold Rove in contempt?

REP. LINDA SANCHEZ, (D-CA) HOUSE JUDICIARY CMTE.: Well, you know, in talking with my colleagues, I‘m not sensing reluctance. The factual situation is the following—we have a very short amount of time left in the term in which to conclude a number of legislative projects. And the problem becomes one of, you know, what takes priority and, you know, what are they going to schedule in September.

And, you know, I understand that this is something that I would love to see move forward in September, but the reality is, there are a lot of competing projects that are of very huge importance to the American public and so, you know, in September, the speaker is going to make a decision.

ABRAMS: The bottom line, the bottom line—it sounds to me like bottom line is—you don‘t think anything is going to happen any time soon.

SANCHEZ: I don‘t know that for sure. We won‘t know until September when they assess what needs to take precedence in the House.

So it's not that the House is reluctant, mind you, to do the right thing when it comes to Karl Rove -- meaning to treat him as any of us would be treated and that is to swiftly hold him in contempt and arrest him if you must. But no, you see it's more a matter of scheduling priorities, with so many "projects" of "very huge importance to the American public" needing to get passed ASAP. So sorry, there's just not enough time to bring Karl Rove to justice -- not when there is offshore oil drilling to be debated!

While Bush II is clearly the worst president in history, this Congress cannot rank too highly either. Regarding the Dems, I can't recall a more gutless and overly calculating bunch of placating, pandering do-nothings.

Cheney is one crazy you-know-what. We're talking Dr. Strangelove nuts (which he would probably take as a compliment).

The question again needs to be asked, what liberal media?

A study by the Center for Media and Public Affairs at George Mason University, which conservatives have always regarded as sympathetic, says the three broadcast networks have been more critical of Obama than of John McCain in their recent news coverage. Most of what the networks air is neutral, according to the study. But when reporters offer opinions, 72 percent of those about Obama are negative--compared to 57 percent for McCain.

McCain continues to get treated with kid-gloves by the media, despite what the right-wing scream machine attempts to have us believe. Incessant, baseless propaganda about the "leftist" media may actually cause their listeners and viewers to buy into this falsehood, but the facts argue otherwise. It wouldn't be the first time reality and truth worked against their talking points and it likely won't be the last.

Cindy McCain is on record stating her husband will stand for "none of this negative stuff, you won't see that come out of our side at all." Quite laughable. If anything, that's all that's been coming out of the McCain campaign -- negative, negative, and more negative.

But Jonathan Alter pretty much hits it on the head:

Look, this thing—it‘s really clear what‘s going on here. You got people in the “National Review,” for instance, a conservative magazine, telling John McCain, “If you don‘t turn into an attack dog and rip Barack Obama and try to depict to him as unpatriotic, you‘re going to lose.” So, this is what they urged him on the cover of that magazine. A lot of other Republican strategists are saying the same thing.

I happen to think they‘re wrong. I don‘t think that‘s the way for McCain to win, but clearly and his campaign has accepted that advice and they have decided that they have to kind of throw these desperation “Hail Mary” passes that are not going to help him, but it‘s like the ad they had last week that said that Obama created, was responsible for the high gas prices.

People don‘t believe these kinds of ads. They know this was a scheduling snafu. They know that there wasn‘t any horrible judgment here. The horrible judgment is, supporting a $1 trillion war with people like me and John McCain did at the time. That‘s bad judgment.

Yes, Alter and McCain got it wrong big-time concerning this catastrophically expensive war, Obama got it right. But with the Olympics coming up soon followed by the Dem convention, apparently McCain's camp has decided their best chance to smear Obama ala Swift Boat style has to come early and often. We're seeing that now. Hopefully Alter is right and "people don't believe these kinds of ads" but we know they've believed fabricated crap before so it may be naive thinking.

With Sen. Stevens in the news for alleged wrong-doing involving an oil company, it's interesting to recall that in 2005 when the oil executives faced the Senate, Stevens refused to have the executives swear in. Try as Sen. Cantwell might, Stevens adamantly resisted enforcing what is a routine formality at all hearings. It appears as if he was simply looking out for his generous buddies....

Meanwhile, many of his fellow Republicans are donating (tainted) money given to them by Stevens. But based on his recent quotes, Stevens remains optimistic about his chances in November -- and why not? As much as voters complain about wasteful federal pork spending, such "waste" is looked on in quite a different light when it comes home to them. Of course Stevens has long known this fact as he has brought home the pork in droves to bribe win over his constituents. Same principle applies with negative campaign ads, the public scorns it but unfortunately they work. Once again, we get what we deserve.

Pakistan appears to be showing its true colors:

American intelligence agencies have concluded that members of Pakistan’s powerful spy service helped plan the deadly July 7 bombing of India’s embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan, according to United States government officials.

The conclusion was based on intercepted communications between Pakistani intelligence officers and militants who carried out the attack, the officials said, providing the clearest evidence to date that Pakistani intelligence officers are actively undermining American efforts to combat militants in the region.

The American officials also said there was new information showing that members of the Pakistani intelligence service were increasingly providing militants with details about the American campaign against them, in some cases allowing militants to avoid American missile strikes in Pakistan’s tribal areas.

My favorite sentence in the story:

Some American officials have begun to suggest that Pakistan is no longer a fully reliable American partner and to advocate some unilateral American action against militants based in the tribal areas.

You think? Bush created this mess over his eight year reign and though he may be lame he still has a few months to go until exiting, so what does he plan to do about this? Nothing and leave it for the next guy?

The "war on terror" (Iraq) is gradually evolving into something much more complex and difficult to handle than it was a few years ago or even several months ago. The tentacles are spreading, other interested countries are working behind the scenes, it's getting beyond just a one-country issue. In this case, we see Pakistan use the "war" to perhaps settle a score with a longtime rival, India. Will other countries get increasingly involved to shape the flow of events to their advantage, or are they already involved? It may be a naive question but still one worth asking.

A must-read piece in today's NY Times. Our voting system continues to be in deep trouble thanks to electronic, paperless voting machines. Cohen only mentions these three highly questionable outcomes, but one has to wonder how many more exist. If our electoral process can no longer be trusted, then what's the point of anything? Why have campaigns, why passionately express opinions, why vote...?

With regards to the surge, Dick Polman has it right:

In the interests of a political detente, maybe Barack Obama should admit that he was wrong about the '07 troop surge in Iraq, and John McCain should admit that he was wrong about the '02 decision to invade. But since neither candidate is likely to budge, perhaps the big question for voters should be: In hindsight, whose misjudgment was worse?
<..>
The difference is that one guy was wrong about a tactic. The other guy was wrong about a fundamental national security decision.

McCain, naturally, wants the electorate to focus exclusively on the surge. And, yes, as it turns out, he was basically right about the surge (while overstating its prowess, as we shall see in a moment). But the surge, lest we forget, was basically a last-ditch tactic that was designed to mitigate a national security disaster, to get the conflagration under control. McCain was an early, unquestioning enabler of the invasion that sparked the conflagration. He helped set the whole house on fire (at a cost thus far of 4125 American lives and half a trillion dollars), yet now he wants to be reap political reward from the fact that he helped hose down some of the flames.

Obama needs to stop heeing and hawing concerning this question and forcefully make the point(s) Polman is making. It's typical that the Dem who has been so right on an issue does not stress it enough; if McCain had voted against the war, we'd never hear the end of it, it would be his #1 bragging point. But Obama was right from the start and he should stress that emphatically and proudly, and repeatedly.

It's similar to an investor who avoided buying a stock at $30 and another who correctly decided to sell that same stock weeks later at $12 before it went to $5. Are you going to credit more so the investor who avoided a $7 slide from $12, or the one who avoided the decline from $30 to $5? Let's get real people!

Also, we don't need a president who's good at mopping up messes he helped to create. We need one who has the judgement and wisdom to keep us out of messes, period. That in itself would be a refreshing change.

The White House continues to scramble in its final days to do what it can to make its friends happier and our country more polluted:

Political appointees at the Department of Labor are moving with unusual speed to push through in the final months of the Bush administration a rule making it tougher to regulate workers' on-the-job exposure to chemicals and toxins.

Where in the *&%$ is this AWOL Congress to put a stop to this madness? I mean who would've imagined that this lame-duck schmuck with horrid poll numbers would still be able to wield the political power he's been able to at this point in his term? The Dems in Congress deserve the likewise abysmal poll numbers they receive, a more flaccid, gutless bunch I can't recall.

John Dean comments on the Kucinich impeachment hearings:

Given the fact that Bush will be out of office in less than six months, it is not likely that the Kucinich resolution will receive the consideration it deserves. This is unfortunate. It has been clear to me since 2004, when I wrote Worse Than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush, in which I analyzed the basis for the very charge that Kucinich has now leveled, that Bush’s actions with regard to Congress – in essence, telling Congress and the American people a deadly lie involving the nation’s blood and treasure – constituted, without question, a “high crime” and impeachable behavior.
<..>
Based on prior subcommittee hearings, the House Judiciary Committee knows well that the checks and balances of the Constitution do not work when the Executive Branch has made itself preeminent among its co-equals, and made a mockery of the separation of powers, as Bush and Cheney have done. Nor is there any real mystery on Capitol Hill about how this happened, for it is the clear result of the action – and inaction – of the conservative Republicans in Congress who assisted Presidents Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II with their increasingly radical expansion of presidential powers. Ironically conservatives once opposed an excessively powerful presidency but they now favor it because they believe they can more easily win the White House than control of Congress.
<..>
Accordingly, I thought if I could merely make the point that conservatives, at one point, decided that they could not tolerate Nixon’s imperial behavior, and explain exactly why they came to that decision, it might clear the Republicans’ focus to deal with Bush and Cheney. Unfortunately, explaining this Nixon-versus-Congress history would be no easy task, for I discovered how ignorant current members of Congress are about Watergate when testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee a few years ago. At that hearing, South Carolina Republican Senator Lindsay Graham made statements and asked questions about Watergate that were less informed that I get from today’s average high school student.
<..>
As today’s hearings continue, it will be interesting to see if any members of Congress are prepared to defend Bush and Cheney’s lies about taking the nation to war in Iraq. Disturbingly, it has been clear for some time that Bush and Cheney did indeed lie – and that their lies fit within a clear, extensive pattern of abuse of power. Yet condemnation from Congressional Republicans has yet to be heard. Sadly, it seems possible that today’s Republicans -- unlike [Charles] Wiggins and the other Nixon apologists who changed their minds when confronted with proven presidential lies -- have no moral lines that they will draw.

No further comment needed.

As Dan Froomkin aptly points out, VP Darth Cheney does not allow we the public to see who is employed in his office. We can see who works for the guy ranking above him -- need I remind you the President -- but no, we can't see who works for the man second in charge. He compensates them with our tax dollars but we can't know who he's compensating.

Another example of our underground federal government at work...

The right-wing media watchdog Media Research Center is in a tizzy over the media's coverage of Obama's trip abroad. I suppose the media should somewhat ignore this event and instead give equal coverage to McCain doing, uh, doing what exactly? Offering up stump speeches that are mainly focused on attacking the guy currently visiting nations abroad -- which is what McCain urged Obama to do to begin with? Oh yeah, that's compelling TV.

Look, the decision to make this trip was a stroke of genius by the Obama campaign, enabling Obama to appear and be received as a head of state and to get tons of media attention at McCain's expense. What we're hearing from the right and from McCain's campaign is sour grapes, period. Internally they know this was a terrific move and it's frustrating the hell out of them. Same as when the Obama camp announced that he would give the convention speech in the Denver Broncos football stadium -- top that one Mr. Maverick.

Oh, and whereas the MRC complains about a lack of coverage for McCain by the liberal media, isn't it funny how this same media continues to help out McCain anyway they can, as if they're propping him up to make it a fair fight. If Obama made this many mistakes and gaffes at this point in the campaign, he would've been toast. The media would've been all over it like the distortions concerning Gore inventing the internet. Liberal media, my arse.

Hopefully the first of many Reaganites to get sane. Larry Hunter, an admitted lifelong Republican, supply-side conservative economist, and former Reagan adviser, is going to vote for Obama. On Keith Olbermann's TV show, Hunter said one reason he went public with this stance is because he heard so many of his colleagues and friends profess similar concerns and beliefs about this upcoming election but were too afraid or embarrassed to speak out.

It's an interesting observation. Whereas many have feared that a Bradley effect could compromise Obama's chances this November, it would seem what's much less anticipated is perhaps many voters like Hunter will cross over to Obama in secret, casting their vote for him but not professing their intention to do so -- a sort of reverse-Bradley effect. In that respect, let's hope timidity wins out over racism.

Regarding the latest in a running series of executive-privilege assertions:

"As far as I know, this is an utterly unprecedented executive-privilege claim," said Peter Shane, an Ohio State University law professor who is an expert on executive privilege and separation-of-powers issues. "I've never heard this claim before."

Normally, claims of executive privilege are invoked to protect the disclosure of the president's communications with his top advisers. But in this case, the White House invoked the claim to keep secret Cheney's responses to FBI agents (hardly what anybody would call his advisers), who were grilling him as part of the now-closed criminal investigation headed by Fitzgerald.
<..>
But a number of former federal prosecutors and legal scholars said that Mukasey's argument that future White House officials wouldn't cooperate with the Justice Department if Cheney's 302 report were to be publicly disclosed seemed a stretch. (The legal claims were prepared in part by Office of Legal Counsel chief Stephen Bradbury, whose legal opinions on interrogation and torture have come under fire from Congress).

"Creative is a good word to describe it," said Mark Rozell, another executive-privilege expert who is a professor at George Mason University's School of Public Policy, about the attorney general's contention. "This is really an argument to protect the White House's own political interests and save it from embarrassment."

And constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley adds:

You know, reading this letter from Attorney General Mukasey, the president is extraordinary, he doesn‘t just claim presidential privilege, he claims deliberative process privilege, he claims law enforcement privilege, he claims anything short of a copyright infringement, to keep the documents away from Congress....We‘ve seen this in other area where Mukasey is treating the White House as off the constitutional grid. That anything that happens in that building, in his view, is simply not accessible to Congress.
<..>
And, you know, this is why when senators Schumer and Feinstein saved Mukasey‘s confirmation, this is what they purchased. And what Congress needs to do, the only thing they can do, is to bring back inherent contempt and to say they‘re going to start to exercise contempt on their own, that the deal is off.

Attorney General Mukasey has broken a very long-standing promise to be a faithful broker, to bring this case to the grand jury—he won‘t. And Congress has a right, now, to say, “We‘re going back to doing this stuff ourselves.”

Btw, where is Chuck Schumer regarding all of this? Wasn't he Mukasey's biggest cheerleader for the Dems? Thanks much AWOL Chuckie!

But is Mukasey there to represent we the people and enforce the laws of this land, or is he there to first and foremost protect, defend, and insulate the president? I thought we got rid of the last stooge performing such a role -- we now just have a new one?

And if Mukasey can do this and get away with it, what's stopping him or any other arm of the administration from doing anything they want whatsoever? I'm starting to think our system of government has no teeth when it comes to checks and oversight, that perhaps the founding fathers never anticipated such a brazen, ambitious and dare I say fascist type leader to take the helm of the country. Is this the fault of the naiveness of our great forefathers -- or does the right amount of checks and balances exist and it's the congressional Dems who are just too weak-kneed and flaccid to enforce such powers?

Another error committed by McCain, this time potentially jeopardizing the life of his opponent.

This is not the first time McCain has had a "senior moment." (click here, here and here, just to list a few)

It's one thing for him to incessantly flip-flop to pander to anyone and everyone, but it's quite another matter when McCain just literally makes a mistake, repeatedly. We've had eight years of a bumbling fool in the White House who has made one enormous mistake after another, can we really afford to have four more years of the same?

Intros are no longer needed:

Environmentalists are bracing for a final battle with the Bush administration over its efforts to weaken clean water, air and toxic waste regulations before a new president moves into the White House.

With only about six months left in office, the administration is proposing rule changes that would repeal a 25-year ban on loaded guns in national parks, ease air pollution regulations on power plants near the parks, exempt factory farms from key provisions of the Clean Water and Clean Air acts, allow mountaintop mining near streams, and make it easier to dump hazardous waste into the recycling system.

"The Bush administration is feverishly trying to undo as many environmental regulations as it can in the final days before the president leaves office in order to reward big business and special interest groups that have supported them," said Anna Aurilio, director of Environment America's Washington, D.C., office. "It's really a shame because it could take years to undo some of the damage."

That's quite a list of pollution, toxin release, and cancer. He feels his job is not quite complete, there are still things to be done to further wreck the planet....

Censorship and purposeful scuttling occurring to the point of confusion. Cheney's staff deletes testimony, crucial email goes ignored, they scoff at a 588-page report by their own experts -- it goes on and on. Bush continues to spout the empty rhetoric concerning the costs to the economy, but his EPA recently said measures taken to combat global warming would save us close to $1 trillion (with a "t") over the next 30 years. Instead of carbon offsetting, we could also look at this as Iraq War offsetting (the cost of the war estimated to be $1+ trillion).

Regarding climate change, they're already calling 2001-2008 as "The Eight Lost Years." They were lost in more ways than one.

I give you not just the most inept and clueless president ever, but also the most disgraceful and embarrassing:

George Bush surprised world leaders with a joke about his poor record on the environment as he left the G8 summit in Japan.

The American leader, who has been condemned throughout his presidency for failing to tackle climate change, ended a private meeting with the words: "Goodbye from the world's biggest polluter."

He then punched the air while grinning widely, as the rest of those present including Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarkozy looked on in shock....One official who witnessed the extraordinary scene said afterwards: "Everyone was very surprised that he was making a joke about America's record on pollution."

It's not just 71% of America that can't wait for this guy to exit but it's very apparent that most nations of the world are likewise counting the days. We've had a spoiled frat-boy moron presiding over us for far too long.

Many a political tout is exclaiming that Obama needs to get his biographical story out there for public consumption, sooner rather than later. That Americans need to get to know him fast, given more voters are already familiar with the McCain story, both fact and fiction.

But before Obama does that he first needs to fully explain why he voted for the FISA bill, after saying he would vote against it. The flip-flops of McCain far outnumber those of Obama, but this flip-flopper by Obama needs to be explained ASAP.

To further muddy up the landscape is Hillary's vote; she voted against it. Granted, on the first vote concerning this bill she was conveniently absent; reminder: she was still running for president then (like Obama). Now out of the race, she can be "bold" and principled.

However, Obama is supposed to be about change, strong-held beliefs, and looking out for the people over special interests, so what gives here?

But don't fret. Sen. Feingold was on Olbermann's show suggesting next year, assuming a stupendous election this November for the Dems, they'll be able to fix this travesty of a bill. Really? How can we have confidence in this happening when the current bunch of incumbent Democrats have collectively acted in such gutless, flaccid fashion for far too long? Are we to believe they'll suddenly grow spines and vote their conscience?

No evidence equates to much continued doubt and they have only themselves to blame for this much-deserved skepticism and cynicism.

Regarding the recently passed horrendous FISA bill, Chris Hedges states that it will work to intimidate those "who seek to expose the lies of our government or governments allied with ours." He goes on to explain how and why.

I wonder if this was a primary goal of this legislation, to further cut down on info being received and reported that embarrasses or exposes our government. Our ever increasingly secretive government becomes that much more clandestine and less accountable.

Pat Buchanan describes Obama as being "exotic" -- you know what that's code for (starts with a "B" ends with a "K")....

Christopher Hitchens (correctly) describes Jesse Helms as "a senile racist buffoon."

Old news: GW's approval rating is at new lows. New news: of those 71% who disapprove of Bush, just 26% support McCain. Basically that says very few are buying that McCain is a better alternative to Bush; confirms McCain = Bush ("McBush").

Ever disappearing oil reserves? Kuwait claims 100 billion in reserves, internal documents cite just 48 billion barrels, some say it's as low as 24 billion. Any wonder why the price of crude is skyrocketing?

So the right has become apparently so frustrated with Obama, the fact that he's a darn good politician and a very strong candidate, that they must stoop to attacking his wife. The ever-smug and a bit crazy Dinesh D'Souza offers up a recent example.

If the right refuses to stick to the actual candidates running, and even more so the issues that face this country, then it should be reminded that Cindy McCain has less than a stellar background.

What's that saying about glass houses....?

How desperate is McCain? Enough to accept Swift Boat money.

It wasn't that long ago when this vet condemned the Swift Boat liars as they attempted to smear and bring down John Kerry. But I suppose that was then this is now, and McCain will continue to toss aside any remaining principle he has to win the White House -- even if it means accepting $$ from a propaganda group who did to Kerry, as McCain said in 2004, “the same kind of deal that was pulled on me.”

As criminal as the interrogation policy under Bush has been its wrongful repercussions won't truly be felt until that fateful day when unfortunately we learn of one or more of our soldiers suffering the same brutal fate, with the captors specifically citing Gitmo and/or Abu Ghraib as the catalyst. Yes, as Alberto Mora states, the images of Gitmo and Abu Ghraib are already responsible for X number of U.S. deaths in Iraq, but again the American public won't pay attention until one or more of our own are captured and tortured.

Let's pray that day never comes, but Bush/Cheney's past actions re "interrogation techniques" have likely made it all the more probable.

In the Guardian, Dan Kennedy wrote:

I think [Scott] McClellan believes what he's saying now, and imagines himself to have arrived at some deep insights into what went wrong in the Bush White House. But deep insight requires deep thought, and there is no evidence to suggest he's any more capable of that today than he was when he was stammering and stumbling through the daily press briefings.

Basically sums up this administration: they may believe real hard, but staunch, die-hard beliefs are in no way substitutes for knowledgeable insights and intelligent, sensible policy. Trusting that the Easter Bunny truly exists is not enough to make it so, or right (after a certain age).

What does it say when the United Arab Emirates, ranked #5 in the world when it comes to known oil reserves, plans to go nuclear for its energy needs in the not-so-distant future? That black gold is running out and the Middle Eastern countries will be the last to tell us this fact. Note what they do, not what they say.

McCain's growing list of flip-flops (thanks to Steve Benen). Perhaps he'll hit 100 in time for the GOP convention.

Recall when Republicans found such behavior intolerable and would immediately cry foul if they even suspected any Democrat of reversing on a prior decision. Apparently that was then, this is now (or could it simply be partisan hypocrisy?).

Keith Olbermann recently caught Sean Hannity believing he was doing his usual nightly act (reciting the GOP talking points), in this case praising Bush for his progress with North Korea, only for Sean to be abruptly "corrected" by that mental giant of world affairs, John Bolton. Sean then quickly did an about-face and agreed with Bolton.

To normal people this is embarassing, but to the world of Fox and its viewers it's just another typical evening.

Recently in the Washington Post:

White House Dismissed Legal Advice On Detainees

Senior lawyers inside and outside the Bush administration repeatedly warned the White House that it was risking judicial scrutiny of its detention policies in Guantanamo Bay if it did not pursue a more pragmatic legal strategy that considered the likely reaction of the Supreme Court.

Even the Bush senior legal lackeys knew that the policies for holding detainees at Gitmo were most likely illegal and unconstitutional, and yet the Supreme Court ruled against it by just a 5-4 margin.

Yes, the dissenting four Justices went against the urgings and instincts of the crack Bush legal team. Incredible. We know how inept and hostile towards the Constitution anyone remotely involved with law is within this administration and despite that fact we now know that four Justices are worse than this collective cabal of legal idiocy.

The election this November MUST be made about the Court's future.

Further evidence the Bush administration pissed all over the Justice Department, converting it from an objective, nonpartisan enforcer of our nation's laws into just another political arm of Karl Rove's twisted vision.

It will take years to fix our government given the extent of the damage and ruin wrought by these flunkies.

Regarding Charlie Black's gaffe (recall that Michael Kinsey said a gaffe is when a politician tells the truth), Richard Clarke, as usual, has it right. Monday evening on Keith Olbermann's show, Clarke said:

[W]hat Charlie Black did is reveal their thinking, not that they wanted terrorist attack, but that they do plan to run by scaring us. They‘re using the same playbook they‘ve been using for years because it works.

And if McCain is sincere in saying that he‘s shocked, that there‘s gambling going on in his casino, then he ought to part with Charlie Black. I mean, Charlie Black ought to be gone tomorrow morning so that we can say, once and for all, that this campaign is not going to be a campaign about fear and about saying that one guy is soft on terrorism and if you vote for him, there will be another terrorist attack; all the sorts of things that we‘ve heard in the past.
<..>
So, we‘re now in the situation where the American people won‘t believe a warning, if there were a real one but McCain can stop all of that. He can stop talking about Hamas has endorsed Obama; he can stop all of this sort of innuendoes and go to the issues-based campaign he said he was going to do.

And the way he does that is by tomorrow morning announcing the resignation of Charlie Black and saying that he wants to run on the issues and not as the “scare candidate,” not as the scaremonger and not as the scarecrow.

But it's Wednesday evening and McCain has yet to fire Black....? Oh well, guess they're going to use that fear-mongering playbook after all. Hopefully the voting public has finally learned their lesson regarding these beneath-contempt campaign tactics and won't get swayed this time when McCain & Co. whip up the scares and frights.

Obama should make the case, "If you don't want change, if you want four more years of Bush, then vote with your fears come November." That should do the trick.

Ralph Nader's once sterling legacy gets tarnished again -- by Ralph Nader. This time in an attempt to get some needed attention he takes shots at Obama.

Just how different is Obama from John Edwards? I continue to believe that Obama will select Edwards as his running mate, yet recall that Ralph Nader endorsed Edwards this year. Does Ralph honestly believe there is a chasm between his choice, Edwards, and Obama? If so, he definitely has a bolt or two loose, but me thinks it's simply more so vanity and publicity-seeking mouthing off. Sad.

When I recently wrote that interviewing Rove while NOT under oath would be "a complete waste of time," don't take my word for it, listen to Scott McClellan:

DAVIS: I'm going to ask you two pointed questions. Would you trust Mr. Rove, if he were not under oath, to tell the truth?

MCCLELLAN: Well, based on my own experience, I could not say that I would.

DAVIS: And, in fact, if Mr. Rove were under oath, would you have complete confidence that he would tell the truth?

MCCLELLAN: I would hope that he would be willing to do that. And as you point out, it doesn't seem that he is willing to do that. But based on my own experiences, I have some concerns about that.

Concerns, indeed. But alas several Dems seemingly trust The Turd completely.

Is this the season of guilt and confession? We had Scott McClellan attempt to purge and now Curveball....?

[I]n his first public comments, the 41-year-old engineer from Baghdad complains that the CIA and other spy agencies are blaming him for their mistakes.
<..>
It was intelligence attributed to Alwan -- as Curveball -- that the White House used in making its case that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. He described what turned out to be fictional mobile germ factories. The CIA belatedly branded him a liar.
<..>
Along with confirmation of Curveball's identity, however, have come fresh disclosures raising doubts about his honesty -- much of that new detail coming from friends, associates and past employers.

"He was corrupt," said a family friend who once employed him.

"He always lied," said a fellow Burger King worker.

And records reveal that when Alwan fled to Germany, one step ahead of the Iraq Justice Ministry, an arrest warrant had been issued alleging that he sold filched camera equipment on the Baghdad black market.
<..>
"I never said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, never in my whole life," he said. "I challenge anyone in the world to get a piece of paper from me, anything with my signature, that proves I said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq."

Over 4000 U.S. soldiers are dead in part due to Bush/Cheney pushing the "intel" of this ex-BK worker -- outrageous and criminal.

In fact, it appears everyone complicit with this cabal of craven thugs is stumbling to come clean and wash their hands of any of the blame. No one wants to get sucked in and painted harshly when the history books are written.

More overtures of the spineless majority continuing down the road of eventually caving in (after much chest-beating and expressed outrage). Just pathetic.

House Judiciary Committee Democrats on Monday renewed their demand that former White House political adviser Karl Rove testify publicly on the politicization of the Justice Department but suggested they may accept a compromise in which Rove would be interviewed in private without taking an oath to tell the truth.

The committee on May 22 subpoenaed Rove to testify at a July 10 hearing on the White House's role in the firing of nine U.S. attorneys in 2006 and his alleged involvement in the prosecution of Don Siegelman, the former Democratic governor of Alabama.

(my bold)

To let sociopath Rove speak while not under oath is a complete waste of time and the Committee likely full well knows this fact. They might as well do the interview over the phone or better yet over coffee at a diner. Give me a break.

An interesting web site, FiveThirtyEight.com, keeps track of polls and projects winners/losers based on prior accuracy of pollsters, recency of the poll, etc. Here is what they're showing currently:


In other words, a very comfortable Obama win. Thank heavens. He needs to have a sizable margin or cushion to insure inevitable GOP vote suppression shenanigans will not adversely affect the outcome (ala Kerry in 2004 and Gore in 2000).

It's all going according to plan. The high price of gasoline is beginning to impact peoples' behavior and so it makes sense that the Republicans will try to blame this unfortunate fact of life on the Democrats. They're already calling it the "Pelosi Premium."

Absolute nonsense, as usual, and quite sad. The GOP has no issues to run on, in large part thanks to the failure of GW the last 7+ years, so they have to drum up this red herring in hopes of smearing the Dems while at the same time keep the heat off their deep-pocket oil buddies. The latest is to clamor about the need for offshore drilling but what you don't hear is thousands upon thousands of already-outstanding leases remain undeveloped or idle. In addition, many offshore wells have already been drilled and capped with the oil companies deciding just to sit on them. And then of course there is the existing 13.4 billion barrels of known oil reserves (formerly called the Naval Petroleum Reserve) that just goes untapped.

Oh, and look, if the right wishes to make a stink about onerous environmental regulations being the big problem here I say bring it on. That claim is just another red herring but even more so the GOP realizes that to turn the attention towards the environment and away from the mindless partisan blame-game -- something they excel at -- is a losing cause. The public is in favor of most things that are pro-environment and as we know most Republicans are not, so again I say turn this idiotic canard towards focusing on the environment. It's all BS, but then so is the entire crux of these Republican accusations.

I just came across this news story (about two weeks old), that the U.S. government is blackmailing Iraq:

The US is holding hostage some $50bn (£25bn) of Iraq's money in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to pressure the Iraqi government into signing an agreement seen by many Iraqis as prolonging the US occupation indefinitely.

It's come down to this, petty blackmail, to try and get that mission accomplished? Incredible.

About the bill that protects the telecom companies at the expense of the Fourth Amendment, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said, "But to have a bill we must have a bill that does not violate the Constitution of the United States and this bill does not."

Absolutely wrong. It's no wonder the Congress is more/less as unpopular as GW. They have the backbone of an amoeba and the principles of a mafia lawyer. At this rate, we'll be lucky if there's anything left standing of the Constitution come November.

Chris Kofinis, former spokesman for Democratic candidate John Edwards, was recently on Dan Abrams' MSNBC program emphatically warning that the Republicans will most certainly attempt to "Swift Boat" Obama, and have already started to do so. He said make no mistake, they'll get the 527s into action and Obama should be prepared for the same sort of groundless smearing that went on four years ago.

Of course, Kofinis is 100% correct, but it's funny how you never hear the yammering dunderheads on the right ever sound the same cautionary alarm. You never hear Rush or Hannity or Kristol exclaim, "My fellow Republicans, please get ready for the onslaught of the Dem smear machine -- you know, the likes of which they do each election cycle."

Yeah, right. The fact is even before Karl Rove raised it to a new level, the GOP has always been about doing whatever it takes to win elections -- lie, insinuate, infer, imply, distort, whatever. Sling the scum, make an impact, hopefully win the election, and then tolerate the criticism after its over (ho hum, yawn, big deal at that point). It would just be laughable to hear anyone on the right even hint at accusing the Dems of likely to "Swift Boat" McCain. Beyond the fact it just doesn't happen, given the many ripe and fair-game targets provided by The Maverick, Obama should be able to attack above-board at will, scoring points steadily in the months ahead.

At minimum, this administration is guilty of war crimes and treason. And yet apparently such wrongful acts don't approach the level of heinous wrongdoing as lying about consensual oral sex. Madness, just sheer madness.

More irresponsible fear-mongering by the right. This time from Newt Gingrich and even worse, from a Supreme Court justice, Antonin Scalia.

Lose a city? To honor the Constitution will cost many American lives? How low must the right sink? It's embarrassing that Scalia is a judge period, much less on the Supreme Court. He's an overt political operative as opposed to an objective enforcer of the law -- he's the purist example of an "activist" judge. Recall on 60 Minutes when asked about the 2000 election decision he simply said "get over it." Smug pr*ck.

As for Newt, need I say more. Fortunately most sane people no longer take him seriously, if they ever did, but the problem is he's still a reverent figure on the right. Scary.

UPDATE: Scalia said, "The nation will live to regret what the court has done today." If he was talking about what the Court did in 2000 to install GW as president, he would most certainly be correct!

I've written a great deal about the rise of the new federalism, or the rebirth of states' rights given the federal government's negligence concerning so many issues. It has forced states to take charge and attempt to get things done for the benefit of the people.

Adam Cohen wrote a terrific piece about this subject. The Republicans are all about states rights -- except when such rights do not favor their special interests (which can be quite often).

A few days ago, I was listening to Rick Shenkman being interviewed on a Thom Hartmann radio segment. Shenkman has written a book entitled, Just How Stupid Are We?: Facing the Truth About the American Voter. He more or less makes the unsurprising case that the American voter is sadly misinformed. He/she will basically believe almost any load of hooey hoisted at them if it's done convincingly enough.

The one example he finds most appalling is the supposed 9/11 and Saddam connection. Of course, most intelligent, non-Fox News viewing folks know that there is/was no connection, but nonetheless Shenkman cites that all too many Americans believed there was and worse yet favored going to war because of this non-fact.

Shenkman, in a justifiably angry tone, implored that just because so many wrongs in our country are not singularly 10-alarm fires doesn't mean they should be excused or should not be elevated to top importance. I've been making this same case about climate change. Just because the warming of the planet is not an immediate problem that will kill us tomorrow doesn't mean it's not an urgent matter. Because the problem is so gradual and in effect subtle, it allows for the public to take it for granted -- until it will be too late to do anything about it. By the time we wake up to its true harm, we'll be long past the point of no return.

Sounds hysterical? Alarmist? Exactly, given the nature of the looming catastrophe we need more strident warnings since the problem itself is advancing too slowly (fortunately for us).

Two days ago I jotted down on a piece of paper six reasons why I felt John Edwards would be the best pick for VP. I then came across Neil Sinhababu's list. I'm sure countless other bloggers have published similar lists for Edwards, Hillary, Biden, Richardson, etc.

Anyway, here's the list I came up with in favor of Edwards:

1) Women like him. There certainly appears to exist a chasm of hurt for Hillary supporters that needs to be healed or at least bridged. Selecting another woman would obviously not help as it would be passing over Hillary for another woman and likely just further exacerbate the problem, so best to pick a man that very much appeals to women. And the fact that Edwards' wife is so appealing, likable, and courageous (given her fight with cancer) is just a huge extra plus.

2) You want a smart, tactful attack dog as VP. It was often said after the 2004 election that Edwards had pushed hard for Kerry to fight back sternly and forcefully against the Swift Boat morons, but his urging was rebuffed. The campaign felt better to take the supposed high road -- and it cost them. That's a great sign, to see Edwards willing and up for aggressive response to the predictable slime from the GOP. Make no mistake, this eagerness to strike back fast and with emphasis will be needed this time around and Edwards can effectively deliver the zings.

3) Edwards is not overly gray haired. Many are saying Obama needs to pick an older fella to offset his youth and relative inexperience. Baloney. We've seen that arrangement for the last eight years and it's been a disaster. Obama does not in anyway want to conjure up images that resemble the current administration. (Also, Obama can use Cheney to point out that age and experience do not always equate to wisdom and good judgment).

4) Edwards appeals to Hispanic and Latino voters. It's known that Obama could use some help concerning these voters and Edwards is well-liked by them.

5) Iraq. Unlike Hillary, Edwards expressed deep regret for his Iraq war vote. As I mentioned in a prior post, Obama's anti-war stance was a huge reason for his edging out Hillary and by going with Edwards (as opposed to Hillary) is keeping unified this enormously important and influential anti-war message. (Esp. vs. McCain's 100-years-in-Iraq message).

6) Lastly, I would mention that Ralph Nader did endorse Edwards for president this year so that could at least mean something with regards to appealing to all those progressives who feel that the Democrats have become just like the Republicans. That may or may not be true but the guy who's been pounding home that belief for the last several years (Mr. Nader) apparently felt differently about Edwards -- quite a bragging point for a presidential candidate who wishes to stress change as his primary goal.

Yes, the more I think about it the more I believe Edwards would be Obama's best choice, and let's be real: Obama is no John Kerry (thankfully).

I keep hearing much complaining by Hillary supporters that from the start the media had gift-wrapped the nomination for Obama and made it extremely difficult for her. Just bull, revisionist history. I seem to recall early on Hillary being ahead in most polls and she received many endorsements in newspaper editorials. As Dick Polman writes:

Hard to believe, but he was not always the frontrunner. He came out of nowhere and defeated the most prominent female politician in America (and arguably the world), someone who is wedded to the only two-term Democratic president of the last 60 years, someone who supposedly would blow out the competition (especially a freshman senator) thanks to a combination of organizational muscle and financial prowess.

And it's important to remember that the political media (the same media that Bill Clinton whines about today) basically declared her the winner last year before a singe citizen had cast a vote. Indeed, on the day Obama announced his candidacy, The New York Times took care to remind readers that Clinton was dominant, due to her "years of experience in presidential politics, a command of policy and political history, and an extraordinarily battle-tested network of fundraisers and advisers."

Yet without any serious executive experience, Obama oversaw a $250-million campaign operation that, among other achievements, pioneered new frontiers in small-donor Internet fundraising, captured the "change" theme and owned it, and managed to survive 16 months of unprecedented battle without any changes in senior campaign personnel. Clinton lagged in the money contest, lost out on "change," and had to overhaul her hierarchy. She was consistently reactive. She was outfought, although she remains too graceless to acknowledge it.

Graceless indeed.

As much as I understand and appreciate the pros and cons of selecting Hillary as a VP, I'm convinced that Obama should take a pass. It's hard to believe someone with the extreme ambition and drive of Hillary, who obviously very much wanted to be president, will adjust to the #2 role and be happy doing it. We've seen someone like Cheney do it but he's been basically running the country with GW's blessing -- doubt if Obama will allow for such an arrangement (!).

Also, Obama would then have to contend with Bill; how can he "compete" with a guy who has already been an extremely popular and successful president for eight years? Yes, it would be great to have the collective wisdom of all three in power (esp. versus the near collective wisdom of zero we've had for the last eight years), but odds favor such an alliance to more likely turn into a disaster, with the egos and massive personalities involved eventually fracturing the much-needed unity in the White House.

That said I have no idea who Obama will choose but my gut tells me it will be John Edwards....

It's finally over (I think?). As much as we'd like the attention to turn fully to the November election, with needed and deserved criticism to start heading McCain's way as opposed to Hillary's, what's sometimes lost in the drama is the fact that this was a very close race, and while Hillary has been mathematically out of it for some time, it's only been by a narrow margin. What could've been the issue that turned against her to cede just enough ground to Obama? I agree with Neil Sinhababu: Iraq.

Perhaps the most under-remarked fact about the Democratic primary is that if Hillary Clinton had Obama's foresight on the Iraq War, she'd be our nominee today and he probably wouldn't have bothered to run. She had the profile to become the leader of the doves in the Senate, a position that would've gained value dramatically as the war turned out to be a disaster. There might've been a challenge from the right, but she would've consolidated left-wing support and won easily. Instead, she became one of the more hawkish Democrats in the Senate, and was probably the most hawkish figure onstage during the Democratic debates. Without even seriously repenting her mistaken vote on the biggest foreign policy question of our time, it's a surprise that she got as far as she did.

Yes, she had other problems, no doubt, but this vote clearly didn't help her from the get-go and Obama's ability to say he's been against the war all along enabled him to differentiate from the others in a very stark and popular way.

It's hilarious to observe McCain, who apparently has ooddles of lobbyists advising his campaign, trying of late to shed this bad image via disassociating from the lot. But it's too late, the damage is done for Obama to exploit.

How can Mr. Maverick defend or make credible his "independent" label, his supposed penchant for criticizing the special interest folks, when he has so many high-placed lobbyists working for him? Bottom line is he can't. Also, what kind of judgment does this display? How can we trust any of his "change" rhetoric when he's employing the exact people from K Street who make sure that real change never comes?

Obama should pound this message incessantly till November.

Also, more evidence that McCain = Bush/Rove: he hired Rove protege Tim Griffin.

Yup, with the tons of lobbyists on the payroll and now hiring Griffin, looks like McCain plans to continue the tradition of scum observed in the last eight years.

With gas at the pump approaching $4 per gallon, add to the list of negative repercussions from this: homes further out in the hinterlands of suburbia. As the price of gas rises, making the price of commuting by car that much more expensive, homes closer to cities and work will better maintain their values, and those homes father away will likely lose value at a faster clip.

The bottom line: with already fast imploding home prices, the steep rise in gasoline prices will only work to accelerate the housing decline.

Those on the right have forever argued regulate less and let the free market sort out on its own who or what should succeed and fail. Yet all too often the free market alone is not sufficient, allowing for extreme and even illegal behavior, which by the time it is "corrected" for has already resulted in massive harm.

In the case of Bear Stearns, the strident free market crowd should've been screaming from the roof tops when the Fed stepped in with its rescue. According to their logic, Bear should have been left to fail, just desserts, the invisible hand at work, etc. However, it's seemingly OK when non-free market aid is given to industry or the rich, but not individuals or Joe Main Street.

The principle should hold true regardless, but that's presupposing principles are involved here....

On this Memorial Day, Bill Kristol blesses us with another column. This time around he wishes for us to honor and thank our servicemen and women. Wonderful, who wouldn't concur with that urging?

However, if you read the column, one can't help but get the feeling that the main objective is to first and foremost remind us of how well things are going in Iraq -- with the thank the soldiers thing a second priority that conveniently fits in with today's holiday.

Kristol would find an excuse to extol the progress in Iraq to a bunch of kids playing stick ball on a street corner. It's a near pathological insistence, one that he's been wrong about for years.

Also, regarding Kristol, I chuckled when I read this from Dick Polman:

This means that the Times has now been forced to run four corrections on columnist Kristol's work, in the span of a mere six months since his debut. (In Kristol's lust on Monday to disparage Obama, he also managed not to "find" that GOP nominee John McCain had lost the Arkansas primary to Mike Huckabee by 40 points. But my favorite Kristol gaffe occurred in March, when he placed Obama in church on the occasion of a specific Jeremiah Wright sermon, whereas, in reality, Obama was stumping that very day in Florida.)

As I have previously noted (bottom item, here), this kind of sorry record is inevitable when a newspaper hires a partisan ideologue to do the work that is better left to real journalists. Fact-checking is a fundamental feature of such work, but derelictions will continue to occur as long as The Times persists in entrusting valuable op-ed real estate to a guy who, among other things, has persisted in cheerleading for the Iraq war in defiance of all empirical metrics.

It goes without saying Kristol has been an embarrassment to the Times since Day 1 of his hiring, but whereas Polman believes that columns with more accuracy would come from "real journalists" as opposed to a "partisan ideologue," I have to believe that there are plenty of opinionated, partisan columnists who would take exception to this comment. I would argue most respectable columnists don't have nearly the abysmal track record of Kristol's when it comes to frequency of errors. He's both lazy and willing to write anything to drive home a strained point -- no matter how far removed from reality or fact.

Yes, I realize Hillary's RFK comments are being blown WAY out of proportion. Most reasonable people understand and give her the benefit of the doubt that she didn't suggest any harm would come to Obama. However, by uttering the comment to begin with certainly doesn't say much about her judgment. A candidate in her position -- running second and trying desperately to pull ahead -- can't afford to even dabble in the obtuse or unclear rhetoric. The onus is on her to show that she is the stronger, more capable leader than Obama and making head-scratching screw-ups like this one just flush that cause down the toilet. And with folks like Keith Olbermann driving home the point, red-faced and fulminating, to the Dem masses, it wouldn't be surprising in the least to see Hillary finally drop out of the race this week.

Related to what Kevin wrote, the apocalyptic right would regard Sheehan's stance as naive and excruciatingly dove-ish, when in fact what he's saying is not only true and sensible, but it works. Don't create unnecessary fear for sheer political purposes that also begets wasteful spending on larger-than-necessary wars, and instead focus the resources on rooting out and destroying the fewer-than-thought evil doers.

Less histrionics to manipulate the masses, more actual anti-terrorist activity. Wouldn't that be refreshing?

Last week, a NY Times editorial commented on McCain's speech where he seemingly vowed to not be GW 2.0, but the Times is rightfully skeptical.

It should not be an extraordinary moment when a candidate for president declares allegiance to the Constitution, promises to not ignore or flagrantly violate laws, talks about ending a long and draining war and vows transparency in the Oval Office.

Such is the sorry state of affairs after seven years of Republican lawmakers’ marching in mute lockstep with President Bush into one policy disaster after another.
<..>
Still, we were gratified to hear Mr. McCain acknowledge the many abuses and failures of the Bush presidency and pledge to not repeat them. Now we need some sign that other powerful Republicans agree with their candidate — and we need to hear much more from him about how he will keep his promises.
<..>
Is he willing to find and fix all the ways that Mr. Bush has undermined the Constitution and abridged civil liberties? Or is he just promising to do better?

Mr. McCain’s record is not encouraging.

It is shameful that the items McCain mentioned as things he will do to bring about change are simply corrections to prior abuses by this administration or actions that should've been taken over the last eight years by any reasonable, responsive president. Whoever becomes the Dem nominee better make sure to consistently drive home the McCain = Bush message. You can already see that McCain is trying to make headway at moving away from this liability, but he has done so much aligning with Bush positions and sucking up to Bush supporters since running for president that it will be exceedingly difficult for him to suddenly shed this baggage in a matter of months.

The Times finishes its editorial with the ultimate question, is McCain's "party, which refused to question Mr. Bush for seven long years, really the one to change direction"?

Pretty easy question to answer.

To attack Iran: Bush and Cheney are for it, Gates and Rice oppose. Hmm, #1 and #2 in power favor it and two lower-ranking players do not -- wonder who is likely to win that tussle? Stay tuned.

Terrific column by Anna Quindlen on the supposed maverick McCain.

Money quote:

The Straight Talk Express is all over the road. There are those optimists who like to believe that once elected, McCain would again emerge as a small-government progressive who would set his own course. But it is the greatest of illusions to believe that a man will masquerade to win, then revert to his authentic self—after all, there is always another election coming.

It doesn't get any more surreal and/or desperate than this. Hillary, it's (been) over.

Click here to view the typically frustrating and bloviating Chris Matthews take a right-wing radio host out to the wood shed. Quite refreshing.

Matthews makes the point that talking with your enemies is not the same as appeasement, with the latter involving the giving away of something. The dictionary defines appeasement as "to yield or concede to the belligerent demands of (a nation, group, person, etc.) in a conciliatory effort" -- again, much different then simply talking. As usual, Bush and the screaming idiots on the right have it all wrong.

It's worth mentioning that a few other past presidents talked with national leaders they didn't particularly like. Eisenhower spoke with Stalin to help end the Korean War, Nixon held discussions with China, and Reagan talked with numerous leaders of the USSR (with Reagan saying, "Living in this nuclear age makes it imperative that we do talk."). Oh, and note all three were Republicans.

Bush's willingness to equate the desire to talk with "enemy" nations as appeasement is just more fear-mongering and irresponsible trash talk -- something we've come to expect from his craven administration. His goal has always been to scare to get his way, as opposed to making any sort of real sense or appealing to anything remotely cerebral. Stirring up fear is just easier and less taxing, and we all know how GW shuns hard work.

With Bush's approval rating appearing to hit new lows with each passing month, fast approaching historical precedence for worst-ever levels, matching that of Nixon at his darkest hour, the prior president that GW desperately looks to for comfort is Harry Truman. Truman had abysmal poll numbers during the Korean War but later was to be regarded as a very good president. Bush hopes he'll enjoy the same fate.

Dream on. The recovery of Truman's reputation and regard had a bit more to do with just the eventual reconsideration of the Korean War. To that end, Bush's ill-repute goes much further than his regretful decision to invade Iraq.

As an example, read the following excerpt from a Truman speech, replace "communism" with "terrorism" and try to imagine Bush saying any of it.

There is a right way and a wrong way to fight communism. This administration is doing it the right way, and the sensible way.

Our attack on communism is embodied in a positive, threefold program:

One, we are strengthening our own defenses and siding free nations in other parts of the world so that we and they can effectively resist Communist aggression.

Two, we are working to improve our democracy so as to give further proof, both to our own citizens and to people in other parts of the world, that democracy is the best system of government that men have yet devised.

Three, we are working quietly but effectively, without headlines or hysteria, against Communist subversion in this country wherever it appears, and we are doing this within the framework of the democratic liberties we cherish.

That is the way this administration is fighting communism. That is the way it is going to continue to fight communism. Now I am going to tell you how we are not going to fight communism. We are not going to transform our fine FBI into a Gestapo secret police. That is what some people would like to do. We are not going to try to control what our people read and say and think. We are not going to turn the United States into a right-wing totalitarian country in order to deal with a left-wing totalitarian threat.

In short, we are not going to end democracy. We are going to keep the Bill of Rights on the books. We are going to keep those ancient, hard-earned liberties which you lawyers have done so much to preserve and protect.

See the difference? Any questions?

After reading this it should be no shocker to understand why Truman's standing has risen over the years. On the contrary, given the abominations, the screw-ups, the purposeful ruin wrought, the spreading of hate and fear for political gain, the disregard and destruction of our Constitution -- just a few of many things beyond the Iraq War, it should likewise shock no one that Bush will not experience a similar recuperation in standing. It's absolutely inconceivable and with good reason.

For weeks now, I've felt that Hillary is determined to stay in this thing because of 2012 (stay with me here). If Obama loses in November, she would then be able to do lots of "I told ya so," the wrong person was chosen to represent the party. By staying in the race this long, it has enabled her to point to big states she was able to win over Obama plus perhaps more than a few key states that Obama may lose to McCain. She would then be able to single out those states as turning points, that if she were only the presidential nominee she could have very well beaten McCain. She would try to pound home this logic for the 2012 race.

Whereas the Dem party is not typically kind to twofers (at least not nearly as much as the GOP which encourages multiple runs and then you've earned it), in this case, given the tight primary race and after all she's a Clinton, Hillary would most likely be the front-runner in 2012.

But that's not to say I'm assuming Obama will lose in November -- I'm not. Just laying out what could possibly be going through Hillary's head.

Another potential reason for her staying power was mentioned by Jonathan Alter on Olbermann's Countdown. He basically described a scenario where Hillary's steadfast decision to fight on is to be used as leverage to get asked to be the VP. To restate, her stern determination and will to continue = a sort of blackmail to become #2 on the ticket.

Interesting. I can't imagine Obama would like such a predicament but it may be one he's forced to contend with. Would he and Hillary actually get along? And Bill for that matter (can't forget him!)?

Increasingly I'm seeing more items like this one:

The US military is drawing up plans for a “surgical strike” against an insurgent training camp inside Iran if Republican Guards continue with attempts to destabilise Iraq, western intelligence sources said last week....US commanders are increasingly concerned by Iranian interference in Iraq and are determined that recent successes by joint Iraqi and US forces in the southern port city of Basra should not be reversed by the Quds Force.

Get ready....

This entire Kevin Drum entry is a must-read. (Whelp, most Kevin Drum entries are a must-read for that matter). It covers not just the flip-flopping hypocrisy of McCain, but also the media's hypocrisy when it comes to coverage of Rev. Wright vs. right-wing hate preachers.

You'd think after years of being shamed with their kid-glove, tepid coverage of the Bush/Cheney debacle they'd at least try to become more even-handed in their scrutiny. Is McCain truly that teflon-ish?

Although McCain has largely been getting a free press from the media about basically everything, Fareed Zakaria, columnist for Newsweek, at least tries to point out a concern.

On March 26, McCain gave a speech on foreign policy in Los Angeles that was billed as his most comprehensive statement on the subject. It contained within it the most radical idea put forward by a major candidate for the presidency in 25 years. Yet almost no one noticed.

In his speech McCain proposed that the United States expel Russia from the G8, the group of advanced industrial countries....McCain also proposed that the United States should expand the G8 by taking in India and Brazil—but pointedly excluded China from the councils of power.

We have spent months debating Barack Obama's suggestion that he might, under some circumstances, meet with Iranians and Venezuelans. It is a sign of what is wrong with the foreign-policy debate that this idea is treated as a revolution in U.S. policy while McCain's proposal has barely registered. What McCain has announced is momentous—that the United States should adopt a policy of active exclusion and hostility toward two major global powers. It would reverse a decades-old bipartisan American policy of integrating these two countries into the global order, a policy that began under Richard Nixon (with Beijing) and continued under Ronald Reagan (with Moscow).

And to think that foreign affairs is supposedly McCain's strong suit -- yikes! With him, it definitely smells like four more years of GW....

This kind of news is getting to be quite old, but that doesn't mean we should grow weary of it (!).

A congressional watchdog agency has found that White House officials repeatedly intervened in the government's scientific process for assessing the health risks of toxic chemicals, prompting Sen. Barbara Boxer to threaten giving Congress control of the program.

The Government Accountability Office reported Tuesday that the White House's budget office, the Pentagon and other agencies had delayed or blocked efforts by the Environmental Protection Agency to list chemicals as carcinogens by requesting more research or more time to review the risks.

Isn't it great to have an administration that is so good at spreading fear, all the while claiming they want to keep us safe, and yet they have no problem with willfully interfering with science that is aimed at protecting us from toxic chemicals and carcinogens.... It's all a charade, attempts to achieve and maintain control via scaring us to no end, but when it comes to substances that can truly kill, whelp they must side with big business. We're just puny pawns in their bigger scheme of things. 1-20-09, 1-20-09....

More evidence that we've been ruled over by a monarchy for the past eight years:

The lawyer for US vice-president Dick Cheney claimed today that the Congress lacks any authority to examine his behaviour on the job.

The exception claimed by Cheney's counsel came in response to requests from congressional Democrats that David Addington, the vice-president's chief of staff, testify about his involvement in the approval of interrogation tactics used at Guantanamo Bay.

Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers expressed his obligatory discontent and outrage -- likely met with laughs and giggles by Cheney and his staff behind closed doors. The branch of government that the President and Vice President belong to (I would normally write "Executive" but these days who knows....) is apparently above it all, above everything, answering to no one, enjoying defacto dictator-like status. They want all of the power, none of the accountability, and they're succeeding thanks to our wet-noodle Democrats.

But wait, they wear an American flag pin quite often, so all is forgiven!

Hillary will appear on Bill O'Reilly's show? Just when I thought she had already jumped the right-wing-pander shark, she goes and proves me wrong....

What we have is a demented marriage of convenience: she's to-the-hilt desperate and will do just about anything at this point to be the nominee, and the gnashing teeth on the right oh-so want her to be the one given she's got a TON more baggage to attack, assail, and smear than does Obama.

Bill Kristol's column on Monday was all about singing the praises of Hillary at the expense of Obama. Look, isn't it a good enough rule of thumb that if the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Bill Kristol, and the FOX network are for Hillary, we should be against her?

And regarding the the Kristol column, it continues to be the same old pap and recycled snores, but one item in particular really struck a chord. He criticizes Obama for refusing to debate Hillary in Indiana:

On Friday in Indiana, Obama talked tough in response to a question: “I get pretty fed up with people questioning my patriotism.” And, he continued, “I am happy to have that debate with them any place, anytime.” He’s happy to have fantasy debates with unnamed people who are allegedly challenging his patriotism. But he’s not willing to have a real debate with the real person he’s competing against for the nomination.

But in the sentence just prior to this paragraph, Kristol offers the completely understandable reason why Obama has made this decision: "[D]ebates would give Clinton equal time in the spotlight, and would make Obama’s advantage in paid media in Indiana and North Carolina far less significant."

Duh. Kristol knows how this game works and even makes that obvious, yet that doesn't stop him from sticking head up butt and writing something naive just after it. If he was backing a Republican front-runner in Obama's spot you'd hear none of this from Kristol. It's Campaigning 101.

It just makes Kristol look disingenuous and laughably stupid. Another in a series of dopey columns by him. Bravo NY Times!

Let's just hope we never see one of our soldiers captured by a terrorist outfit and waterboarded, with the justification offered being some cobbled-together logic inspired by the recent revelations that our Justice Dept. gives it the OK, and top White House officials also approve.

Did a terrorist outfit always have the opportunity to do this? Sure, but before learning that we apparently do employ torture and find it to be legally acceptable "under certain circumstances," we stood on firmer ground of no-tolerance for such acts with one huge reason being we don't do it ourselves. That precedent just went out the window. Instead, we've decided to cross over and join the legions of primitives and thugs.

Not to mention the evidence showing these tactics simply don't work (just Google "torture does not work"), and instead we've open our soldiers up to harm via reciprocity.

Just more backwards, idiotic reasoning from this reigning cabal. As with their idea to outsource many federal jobs (you know, like a good deal of our military presence in Iraq), forcing current government employees to justify their existence else be shown the door. The problem is this program hasn't gone quite as expected (surprise!):

It turned on a simple idea: Force federal employees to compete for their jobs against private contractors and costs will decrease, even if the work ultimately stays in-house.

But as Bush's presidency winds down, the program's critics say it has had disappointing results and shaken morale among the federal government's 1.8 million civil servants.

Private contractors have grown increasingly reluctant to participate in the competitions, which federal employees have won 83 percent of the time.

The program fell short of the president's goals in scope and in cost savings. Between 2003 and 2006, agencies completed competitions for fewer than 50,000 jobs, a fraction of what Bush envisioned.

Moreover, the Government Accountability Office found that the administration has overstated the savings from some competitions by undercounting the costs of running them. Collectively, they cost $225 million, or about $4,800 per job, according to White House figures.

"The competitive sourcing initiative did little to improve management, produced a ton of worthless paper, demoralized thousands of workers and cost a bundle, all to prove that federal employees are pretty good after all," said Paul C. Light, a professor of government at New York University's Wagner Graduate School of Public Service.

Just more incompetence from these fools. Meanwhile, recall what Clinton/Gore did to shrink government and make it more effective. Ah yes, the good old days....

Nicholas Kristof recently wrote:

Imagine if President Bush announced a plan for Iranian and North Korean nuclear programs that declared: They will cease accumulating nuclear weapons by 2025. We will accomplish this through incentives and voluntary action, without mandates.

Mr. Bush would be ridiculed, but in essence, that’s the plan he announced for climate change on Wednesday. He set a target for halting the growth in carbon dioxide emissions by 2025, without specific mandates to achieve that, and in the meantime he blasted proposed Senate legislation for tougher measures as unnecessary.

I've written about another comparison that could be made to emphasize the absurdity and hypocrisy of this administration's stance on the environment: Cheney's 1% doctrine.

But also there was a time when the build-up of nuclear arms was referred to as MAD ("mutually assured destruction"), implying rational thought would insure that the lethal stockpiles would never be used. That scary assumption appeared to work for decades, despite the inherent evil and waste associated with building such bombs. Nonetheless, fewer nukes on the planet is a good thing and worth pursuing.

Cut to climate change. It too is MAD, as we're all "mutually assured destruction" if we continue to ignore this problem. However, the fact that global warming does not conjure up jarring images like hundreds of war heads pointed at our country or "finger on the button" jitters makes the entire issue less frightening, less impending, less urgent. Yet with each passing year of no mandates, no action, no urgency makes the probability of MAD that much more irreversible and certain.

When will this enormously pressing problem generate the fear it deserves, to be treated less as a luxury that can be managed or curtailed at the margin? And we've observed what this administration can do when it wishes to crank-up the nail-biting on anything meaningful to them. Even more alarming is things are getting increasingly worse as is -- before even factoring in the millions of additional cars and hundreds of additional coal plants that will be built in fast-developing countries like China and India.

Whereas many believe GW will go down as the worst president in history due mainly to Iraq and Constitutional transgressions, his purposeful and unconscionable delay(s) on anything having to do with climate change will more likely become his primary demerit. His eight years of stonewalling and water-carrying for industry on this front has literally adversely changed the course of nature to the point where we may never recover.

Maybe that's why he cares not a wit about the federal deficit: who will be around to collect?

With regards to the back/forth Hillary/Obama media dance, Kevin Drum recently wrote:

I'm more interested in following the almost pathological pandering and flip-flopping coming out of John McCain's camp these days — you can practically feel the desperation if you watch closely — but it's hard for that to get a lot of traction until the Dems finish up their race.

So true. McCain is on holiday, getting a free pass from MSM scrutiny while Obama and Hillary slug it out. Needless to say, McCain has tons of baggage just waiting to be spotlighted and vetted, baggage that is much more relevant and meaningful than the level of Rev. Wright coziness or sniper fire memories.

Whenever that day may come, Keith Olbermann offered up a start by listing eight questions that could be asked of McCain. The topics are plentiful: the "Keating Five" S&L scandal, Jerry Falwell flip-flopping, Confederate flag support, flip-flopping on tax cuts for the rich, support from anti-gay/anti-Semitic/anti-Catholic John Hagee, McCain's "senior" moments re Iraq, his admission that he doesn't understand our economy -- the list goes on and on.

Dems should be researching like crazy, readying to launch the many valid questions that need to be asked, and more so answered. And make no mistake, it will be difficult to get those questions asked much less answered given the media's over-the-top adulation for Teflon John.

Never mind Truman, worse than Nixon:

For the first time in the history of the Gallup Poll, 50% say they "strongly disapprove" of the president. Richard Nixon had reached the previous high, 48%, just before an impeachment inquiry was launched in 1974.

GW continues to make (dubious) history.

Rick "Anyone But McCain" Santorum flip-flops and endorses McCain.

Santorum always liked to brag about his principles, how he stood above politics and looked to just do what he felt was right. In the end, that was all just complete bullsh*t. He's just as much a party-affiliated hack as anyone else in Washington.

I mean c'mon, the guy's on record saying, "I don’t agree with him [McCain] on hardly any issues." If that's the case, Santorum always had the option of simply not publicly endorsing McCain, staying silent. The fact he felt compelled to do otherwise, despite disagreeing with McCain on almost every issue, further emphasizes how few principles Man-On-Dog Rick really has.

It's par for the course. McCain is anything but Mr. Straight Talk Express, Santorum is anything but Mr. Diehard Principles.

Jon Stewart recently said, "My position is: Free societies are not safe -- and that's the price you pay for your freedom. And you can't have it both ways."

Exactly, dead-on correct. We do all that we can to insure our safety, but we draw the line when it comes to infringing on civil liberties and Constitutional guarantees. Once you go beyond such limits and begin to protect in the name of fascist domination then what's the point? All that our founding fathers and colonial brethren fought for is quickly deemed for naught. As Stewart rightly states, freedom comes with a price, one I assume we're all willing to pay.

Having said that, we have Newt Gingrich making quite the different point:

Yesterday, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich visited Drew University in New Jersey, where he took questions from 20 political science majors there. When one asked him how the government could justify stripping rights from Americans in such pieces of legislation as the Patriot Act, Gingrich said that the government has a “right to defend society,” and when under threat, “people will give up all their liberties“:

"If there’s a threat, you have a right to defend society,” Gingrich said. “People will give up all their liberties to avoid that level of threat.“

Gingrich is directly contradicted by Benjamin Franklin, who rejected the notion that one should give up one’s liberties out of fear:

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

A supposed conservative contradicting perhaps the wisest and most astute founding father. Yeah, that sounds about right.

About Bush's third in a series of attempts to appear remotely interested in climate change, Stephen Dinan of the conservative Washington Times wrote, "One person briefed on White House deliberations said a cap-and-trade program for electric utilities was dropped from the package yesterday, after the White House was flooded with complaints from industry officials and lobbyists."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't the cap-and-trade solution to global warming always been the one most favored by right-wing, pro-business, free-market types? They've claimed it's the more reasonable and cost-effective way to go, with many environmentalists disagreeing, saying it simply won't be nearly as effective as government regulation and mandated reductions.

And yet the industry lobbyists and no-doubt right-wing cohorts are adamantly against even this provision, their preferred alternative.

Remember this the next time you see one of those warm and fuzzy ads by an energy or utility company strongly making the case that they truly care about the environment.... Just more propaganda.

We recently learned of Cheney and other top White House officials being directly involved in the orchestration and approval of torture techniques and the fact that this revelation has not broken as big as Clinton's Lewinsky affair or even Watergate is a sad and telling sign about our country. Apparently we've become so accustomed to this administration committing so many wrongs and illegal acts that we're now numb to it all. Endorse and use torture? Sure. Illegal eavesdropping? I guess. Bomb Iran? Whatever.

The attack-Iran drum beating grows louder.... Read more about the events leading up to this point here.

On this specific subject, Kristol may be right when he recently said, "I think people are overdoing how much of a lame duck the president is." While Bush undoubtedly is looking to leave his Iraq mess to the next president to figure out, I agree with those who say he's very likely not going to leave office with the Iran question still unresolved.

We find out Mark Penn was moonlight lobbying for a bill that his U.S. prez client was against (and the current extremely unpopular prez from the opposite party is for). Yeah, this about sums up the unfortunate and just dumb Hillary campaign as we've come to know it.

Throw this item in with the sniper fire misspeak, the lack of national organizing due to excess confidence, the agreement that FLA and MI shouldn't count only to flip-flop, having Rendell and Ferraro on staff NOT locked behind closed doors, and even Hillary likening herself to Rocky in PA -- apparently not realizing that Balboa lost in that movie to an African-American.

Based on the mismanagement and sheer idiocy of Hillary's campaign, it's hard to believe her husband was quite good at this in his day. Wow. We've had eight years of incompetence, we certainly don't need four more.

Reminder: the number of House Republicans deciding not to run for reelection this year continues to pile up, with the latest number being 27. This compares to just seven open seats on the Dem side and many expect that 27 number to go well over 30 before November rolls around.

It's safe to say Pelosi's job is fairly secure, not just after this year but likely beyond 2010. And the recent Bill Foster win in Illinois serves as a canary-in-coalmine event that frankly didn't shock as many House Republicans as one might think.

Well put:

Mr. Bush, it has been said, compares himself to Harry Truman, a president who left office dogged by an unpopular war and low public approval, but who is today viewed as one the 20th century's finest presidents.

It is possible that posterity will be equally kind to Mr. Bush. But if you're going to compare yourself to Mr. Truman, it helps to have your own equivalent of the Marshall Plan, the containment policy against Russia, the formation of NATO, the defence of South Korea and desegregation of the armed forces on your résumé. What in the Bush legacy even comes close?