More catch-up items:

The NY Times mentions that with all this union fracturing the Dems will surely be hurt by it. I beg to differ. What's implied in this thinking is that union voters are predominantly under some kind of mind control by the labor bosses, who apparently shower their members with a variety of pro-Dem propaganda. Never mind the fact that most union members are within a demographic that would normally be inclined to vote Dem, not requiring the force-fed "education" from the union's powers-that-be. The labor bloc by definition of their income, race, etc. is simply going to vote more so Dem than GOP. And besides, where is it said that the newly formed union/coalition won't contribute just as much to the Dem Party?

Helen Thomas asks the obvious: "Two years and he [Bush] can't call Rove in and find out what the hell is going on? All he has to do is call him in?" And McClellan's non-answer: "Because there's an investigation continuing at this point, the appropriate people handling these issues are the people investigating this investigation." How is it the American public is standing for this bullsh*t?

I highly recommend listening to former CIA officer Larry Johnson on Al Franken's radio show. He's extremely well-informed and doesn't hold back on his comments.

I noticed the passing of the CAFTA bill was another past-midnight session. Recall DeLay did this to pass that rotten prescription bill. He's making a habit of breaking congressional tradition (being progressive?!) by doing whatever it takes to get bills passed that he and the White House favor. In this case, the bill squeaked by 217-215.

93% of Americans want government to develop new energy technologies and require auto industry to make cars and trucks that get better gas mileage. And yet, the auto industry successfully removed a measure in the latest energy bill that would've required increasing the fuel-efficiency of cars and trucks.

Just some of the items I've come across while catching up:

Among all of the other things making him unqualified, we now learn that Bolton is a liar. If he can't recall this incident, then one has to question his mental capabilities and have it further weigh against him given the importance of this position. But, it apparently won't matter since King George plans to override all democratic-like means and appoint him when Congress is out.

Meanwhile, the King's popularity continues to scrape bottom as impeachment momentum continues to grow.

Could that (GW's piss-poor poll numbers, making him an even lamer duck) have anything to do with Frist's astonishing moment of sanity, with him flip-flopping and now supporting stem cell research? Or could it be that Frist wants to run badly in '08 and realizes the public supports stem cell research overwhelmingly? Does political skin once again triumph over supposed moral stands and principles? Oh, me thinks so. At end of the day, these guys don't give a hoot about abortion and the like when it comes to playing politics. Just look at Santorum and GW when it came to pro-choice Specter vs. pro-life Toomey: they both endorsed Specter over Toomey. Bunch of hypocrites. Yes, Frist got slammed by conservatives for this move, but he looked at the pros and cons vote-wise come 2008 and decided otherwise -- his BS about sanctity of life be damned.

I've been away for several days getting some much needed R&R. I plan to spend tomorrow catching up (have I missed much?) and then begin posting, lots.

So Bush went against the wishes of the people to nominate a woman (80% favored) that was in favor of existing abortion laws and that was not overly conservative -- at least by the standard of Justice O'Connor (just 17% deemed her conservative). Nope, instead he chose payback to -- you guessed it -- his religious & far-right supporters.

Roberts is clearly not a mainstream, moderate conservative. He doesn't have an extensive record to go on -- which is by design since Rove/Bush wanted to keep the Dems guessing and give them as little damning evidence as possible. However, based on what you can find is a judge/lawyer who is deeply entrenched in Republican-backed organizations, one who actively fought for Bush in the vote recount of 2000 (another payback by Bush), one who is strongly opposed to environmental protections and regulations, one who has stated that Roe v. Wade should be "overruled" and has argued against doctors having the free speech to advise patients about abortion, and one who voted against Cheney having to turn over his infamous energy notes. And this is just what we know based on his relatively scant record. As the WSJ puts it, Roberts' short time on the bench gives the White House a "strategic advantage." It pays to pick a rookie!

All you really need to know is Matt Drudge had blaring on his web site, "Thank you, Mr. President." Oh, and that the far-right nutjob Hugh Hewitt is best buddies with Roberts.

Many editorials have lamely described Roberts as somewhat moderate, not by providing specifics concerning his record but rather doing so in relation to who they expected Bush to nominate. Most thought the nominee would be a much more overtly far-right candidate. Instead, Roberts is a stealth choice.

If he's thought not to be an extremist, it's by design. Rove/Bush simply had to pick someone who was a bit more right-wing than O'Connor; it's all relative. If he were to replace Rehnquist, many wingnuts would have been far more disappointed. However, when Rehnquist retires, then they'll pick a more obviously strident right-wing nominee, with the end result being -- poof, a Court that overall is farther to the right than it was with O'Connor and Rehnquist.

Look, as much as I despise most of what I've read about Roberts' rulings and positions (esp. about the environment), he's a shoe-in. Harry Reid has already uttered that he has "suitable legal credentials," i.e. he's in. I tend to agree with this take, particularly since the Dems have shown they don't have the stomach for a fight and there upcoming "resistance" will be all bluster and for the cameras. They will NOT go to the mat so just get it over with and refocus attention to all of the other GOP sh*t that's piling up. Ironically, Rove/Bush are likely praying that the Dems will engage in a protracted ugly fight so that it will continue to run the clock on delaying media attention spent on Rove's Plame mess.

Yes, it's disturbing that Roberts is fairly young and that we'll have to live with his decisions for a few decades. But in reality (reminder: we're reality-based), who did we think we were going to get, another Ginsburg? Or even a Souter? This entire SCOTUS process is a lost cause (almost as if the Dems knew as much when agreeing to the idiotic Catch-22 filibuster agreement). No, the REAL fight, one that can be won, is regarding the ever-growing mountain of sleaze, lies, deception, and slime (Rove, DeLay, DSM, Iraq debacle, environmental policy doctoring, etc.). This SCOTUS fight can't possibly be won so like a smart general would do, proper strategic decisions need to be made to channel the resources and attention to the right battles, the ones that with proper execution can expose the GOP's Achilles heel for the fatal blow.

To defeat Rove's army requires shrewdness, chess-like maneuvers, focus, discipline, and the willingness to look at the bigger picture and see the mission through to its poetic completion. Too often the Dems have taken Rove's bait and paid for it. Schiavo and DSM simply fell into their laps. It's time for smart planning and purposeful action. The Dems still have plenty to work with thanks to blundering and blind-with-power Republicans. They simply need to realize this fact and use the time effectively and wisely.

The Top 10 Conservative Idiots (Volume #206)

E.P.A. to spend millions on public relations:

“Good science does not need spin,” stated PEER Program Director Rebecca Roose, pointing to recent reports that have faulted the agency for improperly altering scientific work on mercury, asbestos, water pollution and even the public health dangers at the World Trade Center following the September 11 attacks. “EPA’s scientists are telling us that there is not enough funding for vital environmental and health research but there appears to be no shortage of money for media manipulation.”

Also, this revealing factoid: since 1970 the size of the average home has increased 55 percent, while the size of the average family has decreased 13 percent.

A religious theme park (called "The Holy Land Experience"), costing $30 per person to enter, gets tax-exempt status. I kid you not. It's run by an organization called Zion's Hope with the stated goal of converting Jews to Christianity.

Didn't "The Simpsons" (justifiably) lampoon something like this?

Perjury?

The Washington Post reports:

A former Justice Department official who talks frequently to people involved in the case said signs point to special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald focusing on the aftermath of the leak rather than the disclosure.

"I think he made his decisions months ago that there wasn't a crime when the leak occurred," said the former official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "Now, he's looking at a cover-up: perjury, obstruction of justice, false statements to an FBI agent."

A few discrepancies have emerged in public statements about the case, offering clues to potential contradictions being examined by the grand jury. Cooper wrote in his Time account of his grand jury appearance that "a surprising line of questioning had to do with, of all things, welfare reform." But Cooper wrote that he "can't find any record of talking about it with him on July 11, and I don't recall doing so." Rove has maintained that the conversation was initially about welfare reform, according to a lawyer familiar with his side of the story.

Ahh, the old refrain, "the cover-up is worse than the crime." And I seem to recall a certain prosecutor looking to go after someone by the name of Bill Clinton over possible perjury charges (recall the endless refrain, "the rule of law"). Of course, that was over a BJ and not the releasing of confidential information (i.e. illegal act) that could put the lives of several CIA agents in jeopardy. But I digress....

Let's see how the wingnuts respond this time around. Is it any wonder this administration is bereft of credibility?

"A friend raises the interesting point about whether there's a grandfather clause on the president's new no-felons-employed here rule. If you committed a crime during Iran-Contra, can you work in this administration? Or does the rule -- presumably -- only apply to felonies commited in the course of employment." -- Josh Marshall

"The news that Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff was the second possible source in the leaking of the identity of a CIA agent to Time magazine elevates the scandal to a whole new level."

The fact that in speaking with Cooper, Rove did not state Plame's name specifically, and instead chose to name her by marital status, tells me that he knew exactly what he was doing. I find it extremely hard to believe that someone as knowledgeable as Rove was unaware of her name. In fact, with it coming out today that when asked by Republicans (!) why was he pursuing Wilson so intensively, Rove responded because "he's a Democrat."

Given how Rove operates, with thorough, almost obsessive, research, it's just ludicrous to believe that he did not come across Valerie's name at some point. He did not deny that he was pursuing Wilson so aggressively but rather confirmed it with the "he's a Democrat" response. It simply stands to reason that Rove knew her name before speaking with Cooper, but even more so knew the law well enough to make sure that he skirted it ever so slightly, clearly conveying his message (as Cooper confirmed) at the same time.

He's simply one evil SOB. We'll have to wait and see if any CIA agents were killed as a result of this leak. In the meantime, it's quite ironic to see such a "righteous" figure serve as the brains and driving force on the side that has most of the born-agains, evangelicals, etc. Funny how they know when to rise up with rage -- and when to simply look the other way (as Jesus would have done???).

"It is quite instructive and shocking, even with this administration, that the outing of a CIA agent, her front company, and god knows how many other agents and operations, is met with a collective shrug from wingnut circles. While a blow job gave them the vapors, a genuine breach of national security gives them no pause." -- Kos

Josh Marshall writes, "Bush sets high new standard: no felons on White House staff." Add this one to the ever-expanding list of GW flip-flops.

Some interesting items at meta-blog The Daou Report:

"Was it through my conversation with Rove that I learned for the first time that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and may have been responsible for sending him? Yes. Did Rove say that she worked at the "agency" on "WMD"? Yes." - Matt Cooper July, 2005

"Speculation on Rove - Everyone (except for the dittoheads) seems to agree that the investigation has moved beyond the Plame leak into something more serious. On the far end, we have to consider what is in the CIA after-action report. If any of our intelligence officers were assassinated as a result of this leak then we are talking about a nightmare of Watergate proportions." -- Booman Tribune

Example (from Kevin Drum) of the GOP disinformation campaign being conducted regarding the Rove/Plame controversy:

Mark Steyn — who appears to have been driven around the bend by the fact that liberals think it's wrong for the White House to casually blow the cover of a clandestine CIA agent in order to discredit her husband — passes along the latest conservative meme:

As her weirdly self-obsesssed husband Joseph C. Wilson IV conceded on CNN the other day, she wasn't a "clandestine officer" and, indeed, hadn't been one for six years. So one can only "leak" her name in the sense that one can "leak" the name of the checkout clerk at Home Depot.

Let's roll the tape. Here's Wilson on CNN last Thursday:

BLITZER: But the other argument that's been made against you is that you've sought to capitalize on this extravaganza, having that photo shoot with your wife, who was a clandestine officer of the CIA....

WILSON: My wife was not a clandestine officer the day that Bob Novak blew her identity.

Wilson is obviously saying that his wife stopped being clandestine as soon as Novak wrote about her, not that she was never clandestine. Can't these guys do any better than that?

And Kevin follows with his typically lucid and dead-on correct reasoning:

Steyn, along with most of the right these days, spends nearly the entire column flinging mud at Joe Wilson, and I suppose I might do the same if I found myself in Steyn's increasingly uncomfortable shoes. After all, it's been obvious for some time, and is even more obvious now, that multiple people in the White House spoke to multiple reporters about Valerie Plame's CIA status even though that information compromised a potentially important covert operation. There's really no honorable way to claim that this is an OK thing to do, so the only option left is to try and divert attention away from that basic fact.

It's pretty sad when conservatives become so obsessed with protecting their own that they're reduced to claiming that outing a CIA agent is no worse than outing a Home Depot clerk. That's some heavy duty moral clarity for you, folks.

I have a question: do the Dems have attack-dog-like point people specifically assigned to the quickly-evolving Rove/Plame scandal? It's obvious the GOP (as usual) does as they've already set in motion their coordinated, obfuscate-like-crazy affront on the matter. It's what they do -- ironically, mastered by Rove.

Where's the evidence that the Dems are staying one step ahead of the GOP shenanigans? Democrats can't rely solely on Air America and the liberal blogosphere to keep this controversy on the front-and-center burner. Instead, they need to take a page from the Clinton playbook and assemble a control center (ala Carville/Stephanopoulos) that conducts intensive research and strategy, and responds immediately.

If the Dems fail to do this, Rove will escape. Make no mistake. As NBC's Tim Russert heard from a Republican, if it were a Democrat in the White House, the GOP-controlled Congress would already be advancing several investigations. Instead, we have the likes of Republican Norm Coleman pleading, "Stop the partisan attacks. Let's get away from the gotcha politics." (Funny how they dislike "gotcha" crap when it's one of their own taking it on the chin....).

Heck, the Dems should directly be consulting with Carville (Where is the guy? He's been more AWOL than Cheney!), and Bill Clinton. The chickens are coming home to roost for Rove -- long overdue. On the heels of the filibuster-agreement debacle, the Dems can't screw this one up.

Some talk radio round-up (and contrast). Yesterday, movie-reviewer-turned-rightwing-ideologue Michael Medved was talking about that blistering subject greatly affecting the country: slavery reparations. Not Rove, or even Iraq or the Supreme Court.

When the sh*t is hitting the fan for the GOP, I just love to tune in to rightwing radio to see what topics they've decided to focus on. Never fails: it's never the brewing topic(s) against their side. Another example: Bill Bennett this week was talking about, what else, sexual abstinence in children (in addition to how terrific a golfer his dad is/was).

Meanwhile, on reality-based talk radio, Al Franken had on former Republican congressman Bob Barr (recall, a Clinton impeacher) and he commented on the Rove mess (a credit to him right there) and stated that he would expect some brave (?) Republicans to eventually call for Rove to resign. In other words, what I said here a few days ago. We'll see. They're a gutless, unprincipled bunch so I remain skeptical. But above all else, with lameduck, numbers-in-toilet GW flapping in the wind, they'll ultimately focus on their own political skins/future.

And Al once again reminded us of the nearly $9 billion that continues to be unaccounted for in Iraq, and yet Republican Norm Coleman -- in charge of initiating investigations on such matters -- does nothing.

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

It's been 36+ hours since this story was released and not a peep from the anti-abortion, "culture of life," and/or religious right folks.... Where's the OUTRAGE?! (crickets)

Shifting HS $$$ from blue to red?

A NY Times editorial yesterday discussed how homeland security funds have been rerouted away from high-risk states to low-risk ones. This despite HS chief Michael Chertoff imploring that the money be distributed based on risk.

Based on risk -- hmmm. What are the odds of a terrorist attack occurring in Wyoming or Nebraska or Oklahoma as compared to much bluer states such as Illinois (Chicago), California (LA), New York (NYC), or Massachusetts (Boston)? What's going on here? Partisan punishment inflicted on those states that went with Kerry? Pork is bad enough but when it comes to domestic security, how insane has the brutish ideological divide become?