April 2006 Archives

by Mark Adams

What do you do when the President's approval ratings reach the freezing point of water -- 32º?

Let it Snow, Let it Snow, Let it Snow.

Poorman hilarity:

TONY SNOW HAS A GIGANTIC HEAD:

If you look into Tony Snow's eyes you can see there's a midget sitting inside his head pulling all the levers and cranks that gives robot Tony Snow his lifelike animatronic reactions. I'll swear right now on a stack of dead grandmothers, if the Bush administration tries to subject the country to this kind of phrenological freak show, there's going to be an uprising that will make the Boston Tea Party look like a fucking tea party!

 Where are the Men In Black when we need them?

Zbigniew Brzezinski provides 4 reasons why Bush must not attack Iran.

See if you can spot the dolphins at the very beginning; hang around for the punchline at the end.

That's New Slang by The Shins on the soundtrack.

[I'm reprinting this again this year because, well, I don't want to face the consequences if it doesn't appear. I'm just saying.]

Rosemary Esmay's birthday is today. Go on over to her blog here and wish her a happy birthday.

I asked her once if there was any truth to the rumor that she was the illegitimate child of Bill Bennett and Janis Joplin. She just smiled and turned away.

Later she came back (tires squealing and guns blazing) and shot out the windshield of my car while I waited at a traffic light.

"Hey you jerkoff! Is it true that you're the bastard spawn of Mort Kondracke and Susan Estrich? Bwahahahahahahaha!"

She let fly with another shotgun blast and blew out my right front passenger window. I ducked. She left skid marks as she pulled away from the intersection.

I could hear sirens in the distance and dogs barking. She was long gone. I sat up in the front seat and dusted the broken glass off the dashboard.

Many happy returns, Queen.

by Mark Adams

There was a bloodthirsty howl from the vendetta prone Bush apologists when they thought they could deflect the ongoing criticism of The Decider by gathering up their pitchforks and torches declaring the New McCarthyism demanded that the head of CIA analyst Mary McCarthy be brought to them on a platter of self-righteous indignation. 

Guess what?  She didn't do it.

It turns out that the New McCarthyism was not much more than the Old McCarthyism.  Just another witch hunt.  No doubt they'll blame the "librule" media for making them jump to the conclusion that CIA analyst Mary McCarthy was a "vile traitor."

What clinched it for the those fine folks who extol the virtue of getting their facts straight, who wish we all were more like Sgt. Joe Friday of "Just the Facts, Ma'am" fame?  ::Gasp::  They had all the evidence they needed.  Mary McCarthy had donated to John Kerry and the Ohio Democratic Party!! 

Yes, the Ohio Democratic Party, so long known to be full of subversives and terrorists.  Not to be confused with the Ohio GOP which boasts a convicted Governor, an indicted leading fund raiser, a disgraced and graft-infested workers' compensation bureau, a Diebold voting machine fixing Secretary of State, a soon-to-be indicted Abramoff crony Congressman, a sobbing Senator and the disgusting veteran bashing Jean Schmidt.

What we did on our vacation:

• We sat on the beach for hours every day.
• We went body-surfing until we could barely stand up anymore.
• We talked to each other. A lot.
• We saw dolphins in the Gulf at sunrise; we also saw an alligator gar pop his head out of the water and wink at us.
• We noticed that the night sky really is a blanket of stars.
• We did read one day's worth of newspapers and a couple of magazines.
• We didn't log on to the Internets, nor did we read a single blog. Near as I can tell, we didn't miss anything.

Mark has done a terrific job in covering the waterfront in my absence. I've asked him to continue posting whenever he feels like it. Thanks, Mark!

I'm also considering opening things up to another guest blogger. Anyone care to volunteer yourself or someone else who might be good? I can't guarantee I'll settle on anyone particular, but if you are interested, send me an email:

ara-at-rubyan-dot-com

by Mark Adams

Pink, your favorite Party Girl has done it.

Crooks and Liars has the video of THE Anthem we've been waiting for.

(BTW, she looks stunning.)

by Mark Adams

Stupid Sam Rayburn.  Stupid Leon Jaworski, Stupid Archibald Cox and Spiro Agnew.  Stupid John Dean.  We had it all sewn up, weathered the storm, doing just fine for eight years, but nooo -- ya had to open your mouth and say Poland wasn't under the Soviet thumb.  Bork was the only guy we could count on back then.  Stupid FBI and their holier than thou attitude.  We knew what we were doing in SE Asia if they had just left us alone.

We've just got to undermine the opposition with an October Surprise while we regroup and concentrate on gerrymandering.

Stupid Sam Nunn and Lee Hamilton.  Stupid Fawn Hall.  Stupid John Poindexter.  Stupid, Stupid Dan Quayle.  We had it all sewn up, weathered the storm, doing just fine for twelve years, but nooo -- ya had to open your mouth and do the "read my lips" thing.  The only guy we could count on back then was Ollie North.  Stupid CIA and their holier than thou attitude.  We knew what we were doing in Central America if they had just left us alone.

We've just got to undermine the opposition with a sex scandal while we regroup and concentrate on purging the voter rolls.

Finally, at long last we got a cooperative Congress and a packed Supreme Court.  No investigations.  Just no more leaks, dammit.  No leaks except our leaks.  And in case there are some leaks, we'll make sure the Stupid Post and the Stupid Times are in our pocket.  Stupid Dick Cheney and his quail.  Stupid retired Generals and their holier than thou attitude. We know what we're doing in the Middle East if they'll just leave us alone.

If they just leave us alone, we can finish what we started.

Stupid internets.

UPDATE: Antifa has a good idea of what they're trying to finish.

What Grover Norquist and the GOP really want to drown in the bathtub is a free people. They need renters, they need peons, they need blind believers, they need economic slaves.

[Note: I'll be away from my computer for the rest of this week. In the meantime, here is one of the more popular posts from the past.]

Surveys show that people who (say they) attend church services regularly usually vote Republican. People who don't, vote Democratic.

So does that mean Democrats can't talk about spirituality? And if they don't, will they continue to lose elections in a nation more and more being forced into a quasi-theocratic mold?

In Bill Moyers' On America, the author talks about aging and how the most successful and happy older people maintain "a capacity for wonder, surprise, and joy -- especially the joy of the present experience."

He talks about his last televised conversation with Joseph Campbell, the longtime teacher of comparative mythology at Sarah Lawrence College, and how Campbell talked about the "guiding idea of his work: to find the commonality of themes in world myths, pointing to a constant requirement in the human psyche for a centering in terms of deep principles."

"You're talking about a search for the meaning of life," I [Moyers] said.

"No, no, no," he answered. "I'm talking about the experience of being alive!" He explained: "People say that what we're all seeking is a meaning for life. I don't think that's what we're really seeking. I think that what we're seeking is the experience of being alive, so that our life experiences on the purely physical plane will have resonances within our own innermost being and reality, so that we actually feel the rapture of being alive."

World (or national myths), deep principles, and the rapture of being alive -- being connected to something bigger than ourselves. America has just such a tradition and it isn't about religion. Democrats would do well to think about that some more.

by Mark Adams

So how's that Draft Condi effort going?

Lawyer: Rice Allegedly Leaked Defense Info

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice leaked national defense information to a pro-Israel lobbyist in the same manner that landed a lower-level Pentagon official a 12-year prison sentence, the lobbyist's lawyer said Friday.

Ahh, Larry Franklin and AIPAC.  The scandal that we keep forgetting just keeps on giving. 

Franklin is the former analyst jailed for giving secrets to the Israeli lobby outfit American Israel Public Affairs Committee when he worked for Doug Feith, the former number three man at the Pentagon.  Feith, the neo-con-duit between Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Cheney's boys in the mysterious Office of Special Plans, was tasked with selling the Iraq war despite all the evidence contradicting their agenda to create a link between Iraq and Al Quaeda and WMD's. 

These are the guys whose hands are stained red with the cherries they picked from intelligence sources like Curveball, Chalabi and Al Libi

In addition to Rice,

The judge also granted subpoenas for David Satterfield, deputy chief of the U.S. mission to Iraq; William Burns, U.S. ambassador to Russia and retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni.

The lawyer for accused secrets recipient, Steven Rosen who is being prosecuted under a WW-1 era espionage act, argues he was permitted to have the info Franklin provided because the National Security Adviser already had let the cat out of the bag.

"On day one, Secretary of State Rice tells him certain info and on day two one of the conspirators tells him the same thing or something less volatile."

Franklin fell on his sword and is presumably waiting for his presidential pardon from the Decider and Declassifier in Chief.

Howard Dean is still ranting about Karl Rove retaining a classified security clearance.  Hell, I wouldn't trust a single one of Bush's retainers with my grandmother's cookie recipes.

by Mark Adams

Oppression of free speech CNN style:

A CNN reporter was thrown out of the welcoming ceremony after he shouted a question about whether Hu had seen the protesters gathered on the city green, school officials said. Yale spokeswoman Helene Kalsky said the reporter was thrown out because he was invited "to cover an event, not to hold a press conference."

When you ask questions, you just get thrown out of the party, not thrown in jail.

Of course it helps to be one of the regulars in the White House Press Pool and not somebody on a Gluckert day pass. Like I said before, it also is important to put your protest in the form of a question. That's always bound to confuse the secret service.

[Note: I'll be away from my computer for the rest of this week. In the meantime, here is one of my more popular videos from the past.]

See if you can spot me: I'm the butterball in the sailor suit.

[Note: I'll be away from my computer for the rest of this week. In the meantime, here is one of the more popular posts from the past -- March of 2004 to be exact.]

I think it was Chris Matthews who said voters respond most favorably to the candidate who can best articulate the following simple message:

"Follow me!"

This year, POTUS is the first candidate to articulate the reasons why we should follow him: "Steady leadership in changing times." Not the precise message that, say, Reagan had ("Stay the course"), but not bad.

The problem for POTUS is that his credibility is shot. People are skeptical because we've followed him for four years and the best thing we can say is, "Gee we might've been EVEN WORSE off without George W. Bush." That's why you keep hearing Bush apologists begin a sentence, "If the Democrats were in charge, Saddam would still be in power," or "I thank God President Gore wasn't in charge on 9/11." That's pretty weak.

On the Democratic side, Senator Kerry has yet to articulate the reasons why we should follow him. What he has done is similar to POTUS: he's talked about why we should NOT follow President Bush. Obviously, he can highlight POTUS' record ("a trail of broken promises"). Although that will energize the base, that's not going to get him elected. He has to provide a compelling reason to follow him out of this mess. So far, he hasn't done it.

Stay tuned.

by Mark Adams

Via: Bob Cesca at HuffPost

AP: WASHINGTON - In a surprise outburst that cast a diplomatic shadow, a screaming protester confronted President Bush and Chinese President Hu Jintao and interrupted the welcoming ceremony on the White House lawn Thursday. Bush later apologized to the Chinese leader.

"President Bush, stop him from killing," the woman shouted, to the surprise of hundreds of guests spread across the lawn on a sunny, warm day. "President Bush, stop him from persecuting the Falun Gong" — a banned religious movement in China.

* * *

The Secret Service identified the protester as Wenyi Wang, 47. Secret Service spokesman Jim Mackin said she had been charged with disorderly conduct and that a charge of intimidating or disrupting foreign officials also was being considered.

When the government supresses speech, arrests someone for speaking up, that's a First Amendment question.  It's not a "federal case" everytime some blogger does something boneheaded and gets called on it.  Censorship is not the same as self-restraint.   Uncivilized discourse is not necessarily illegal even though it should be universally condemned. 

I know this for a fact because not only does Rosemary agree with me on this point, but so does Wince:

Mark was right, and I was wrong.

Freedom of Speech kicks in when you get charged with a crime for shouting at a communist dictator, in America, right after your President just told the Chinese President:

"China has become successful because the Chinese people are experience the freedom to buy, and to sell, and to produce -- and China can grow even more successful by allowing the Chinese people the freedom to assemble, to speak freely, and to worship."

Now let me get this straight.  The Commander In Chief of the world's most lethal military machine, the leader of the planet's most dominant economy, the President of the most successful democracy in history tells you to lighten up on the oppression thingy, and you aren't supposed to be intimidated.

A lady in the crowd "Gluckerts" a press pass and yells at the leader of a billion people, and she's going to be charged with intimidation?

Okay.  That's a great lesson for the kids.  It was just as sad seeing her news organization turn their back on her.  Maybe, since she must have known she'd be in jeopardy for her actions, it would have been better if she had shouted in the form of a question.


See?  That would have made her sound like a friendly Foxpert and not some crazed protester.  Now she'll be lucky not to end up in Club Gitmo.

[Note: I'll be away from my computer for the rest of this week. In the meantime, here is one of my more popular posts from the past.]

Reading the drift of the comments here, I feel compelled to link to a brief summary of the case Marbury vs. Madison. So go read it if you must. It's short and sweet.

Now...Wince:

Earlier in the other comment-thread you said, "Supreme Court Justices have a tendancy to think that the Constitution means whatever they say it means. That's overstepping their bounds and it is tyranny."

I think you are looking at this in a shallow way. The entire fabric of our judicial system is rooted in the Judeo-Christian ethic of making difficult judgements based on ambiguous fine points of law. A judge, being only human, listens to both sides, considering the pro's and con's of the opposing arguments and then decides what wins and what loses. It's a "judgement call" in the truest, most profound sense.

And long ago, we the people agreed to invest a selected group of our peers with that authority and with that responsibility.

You can always appeal. But the appeals have to stop somewhere here on Earth. And that is why the Supreme Court is called the highest court. Gosh! even the name is a tipoff.

Some would say God's Law is most high. Perhaps it is, as defined (for example) in the Bible. But we are not a nation that is governed by the church or the temple. Even if we were, all you have to do is look at the Talmud to understand that there is always more than one opinion about everything.

No, we are not a government ruled by the church. We are a government of the people, for the people and by the people. We follow a document that WE wrote.

Some would hope that God guided us in that ongoing endeavor. But if that is the case, it is also certainly true that God helps those who helps themselves.

It's hard to make your way through the difficult questions Wince, I know. But we all agreed, long ago, that this was a job for the people to do. We don't wait for God to judge these difficult cases for us.

Unfortunately we all think we know best. I know better than you, and vice versa. And don't get me started about the lawyers. But in order for there to be progress, we have to have a system of laws and someone needs to judge who is right and who is wrong. Preferably someone here on Earth.

Unfortunately, we're only human. We're all fallible, especially Supreme Court Justices. Maybe that's why they begin each session with a prayer for guidance. They need all the help they can get. Goodness -- it isn't just enough to read the text of the Constitution; you have to be ready to listen to people debate what it means. That alone is a huge job, given that everybody has an opinion and by the time it reaches the Supremes, you've got some high-powered legal minds leaning on you. But if that weren't enough, when the debate is over, you still have to decide who the winners are and who the losers are.

Once you've spoken, it's over.

Sorry. Would that it was more simple, but that's how it goes.

So it takes a special person to do this. It isn't something that you or I can do, unless you or I were to be vested in robes of ultimate, infinite authority and infallibility. But that isn't what this nation is all about.

We're a nation of people who have our own ideas and opinions about what's best for all of us. And we have an earthly mission to work it out in a reasoned way. That's why our government has three branches and that's why each one is checked and balanced against the others.

It's a big job being a Supreme Court judge (there's that word again). And before someone is qualified to judge the law as measured against the Constitution, they must attain a lifetime full of experience. They must show evidence of excellence. Yeah, there have been some real losers on the bench. But that's the occasional price we pay to live in the best nation God ever put on the Earth.

I'd say it was worth it, Wince. Wouldn't you?

Sorry this was so long. I didn't have time to make it shorter.

[Note: I'll be away from my computer for the rest of this week. In the meantime, here is one of my more popular videos from the past.]

by Mark Adams
You used to have to be one of the cool kids to get your picture on the cover of Rolling Stone. 

Sean Wilentz, in declaring and explaining why our Pres-Nit-Wit is simply the worst of all time cites polling data from historians who judge the Bush Administration as a "failed presidency" by an 81% margin -- and that was before Katrina, before Libby's indictment, before we knew the "Decider" was a one-man declassifying machine, before Harriet Meiers, before Iraq fell apart despite three elections, before the Mutiny of the Generals.

Calamitous presidents, faced with enormous difficulties -- Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Hoover and now Bush -- have divided the nation, governed erratically and left the nation worse off. In each case, different factors contributed to the failure: disastrous domestic policies, foreign-policy blunders and military setbacks, executive misconduct, crises of credibility and public trust. Bush, however, is one of the rarities in presidential history: He has not only stumbled badly in every one of these key areas, he has also displayed a weakness common among the greatest presidential failures -- an unswerving adherence to a simplistic ideology that abjures deviation from dogma as heresy, thus preventing any pragmatic adjustment to changing realities. Repeatedly, Bush has undone himself, a failing revealed in each major area of presidential performance.

Reading history, you cannot fail to come across something you didn't know, often poignantly applicable to current affairs.  For instance, I would love to see a young Republican Congressman say the President is, "a bewildered, confounded and miserably perplexed man" and denounced the war as "from beginning to end, the sheerest deception," right from the floor of the House of Representatives.

The Congressman?  Abraham Lincoln.

(Hat Tip Atrios. There's more after the break.)

[Note: I'll be away from my computer for the rest of this week. In the meantime, here is one of the more popular posts from the past.]

No, this isn't Dave's list. It comes from here:

1. Chuck Norris' tears cure cancer. Too bad he has never cried.
   
2. Chuck Norris does not sleep. He waits.
   
3. Chuck Norris does not hunt because the word hunting infers the probability of failure. Chuck Norris goes killing.
   
4. The chief export of Chuck Norris is pain.
   
5. Chuck Norris is currently suing NBC, claiming Law and Order are trademarked names for his left and right legs.
   
6. Chuck Norris sold his soul to the devil for his rugged good looks and unparalleled martial arts ability. Shortly after the transaction was finalized, Chuck roundhouse kicked the devil in the face and took his soul back. The devil, who appreciates irony, couldn't stay mad and admitted he should have seen it coming. They now play poker every second Wednesday of the month.
   
7. Chuck Norris built a time machine and went back in time to stop the JFK assassination. As Oswald shot, Chuck met all three bullets with his beard, deflecting them. JFK's head exploded out of sheer amazement.
   
8. To prove it isn't that big of a deal to beat cancer. Chuck Norris smoked 15 cartons of cigarettes a day for 2 years and aquired 7 different kinds of cancer only to rid them from his body by flexing for 30 minutes. Beat that, Lance Armstrong.
   
9. If you can see Chuck Norris, he can see you. If you can't see Chuck Norris you may be only seconds away from death.
   
10. A blind man once stepped on Chuck Norris' shoe. Chuck replied, "Don't you know who I am? I'm Chuck Norris!" The mere mention of his name cured this man blindness. Sadly the first, last, and only thing this man ever saw, was a fatal roundhouse kick delivered by Chuck Norris.

Yeah, but how would he do in a fight with The Flying Spaghetti Monster?

P.S. If you thought those were funny, you need to see the other 20 of the Top 30 Chuck Norris Facts. On the other hand, if you cannot fathom why I put this up here, just move on and don't tell anyone we talked.

(HT to Kung Fu Monkey)

by Mark Adams

CNN.com - White House spokesman resigning
Rove to lose policy portfolio

There's good and bad in this.  It's fantastic that Karl Rove will no longer be in charge of White House Domestic Policy -- a role for which he was so utterly exposed as completely inept since his rousing defeat on Social Security privatization and management of the Katrina disaster.  The bad news of course is that he will be more free to do what he does best, electing corrupt ideologues to perpetuate the Republican Majority.

That's the change we won't see so much.  Changing the public face of the White House with Scott-Bot McManiquin leaving will be more apparent, and if the rumors of Tony Snow taking the job are true, I expect to be physically ill three to five times a week watching that piece of work lie to the press corp.

But Rove? That's the real story:

Also, a senior administration official revealed another move in the ongoing shakeup of Bush's staff, saying that longtime confidant and adviser Karl Rove is giving up oversight of policy development to focus more on politics with the approach of the fall midterm elections.

Suddenly the Democrats are put on notice that it won't be a cake-walk this fall.

Cross Posted at Dispassionate Liberalism.

[Note: I'll be away from my computer for the rest of this week. In the meantime, here is one of my more popular videos from the past.]

I'll bet you can't sit still for it!

...and I drive a mid-size family sedan.

How are gasoline prices where you live?

P.S. Onward to Iran! I needed the exercise anyway.

Shorter John Podhoretz: "Bush can't fire Rumsfeld now because it would just remind people of how badly the war has gone."

Watergate veteran Carl Bernstein calls for bipartisan hearings investigating the Bush presidency:

We have never had a presidency in which the single unifying thread that flows through its major decision-making was incompetence -- stitched together with hubris and mendacity on a Nixonian scale.

There will be no shortage of witnesses to question about the subject, among them the retired three-star Marine Corps general who served as director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the war's planning, Gregory Newbold.

Last week he wrote, "I now regret that I did not more openly challenge those who were determined to invade a country whose actions were peripheral to the real threat -- Al Qaeda. I retired from the military four months before the invasion, in part because of my opposition to those who had used 9/11's tragedy to hijack our security policy."

The decision to invade Iraq, he said, "was done with a casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions -- or bury the results." Despite the military's determination that, after Vietnam, "[W]e must never again stand by quietly while those ignorant of and casual about war lead us into another one and then mismanage the conduct of it... We have been fooled again."

by Mark Adams

Hectic weekend to say the least, dinner for 35, being a bunny, wife's B-Day, filling in for a sick employee . . . but the blogs must roll!

Ara loves him some polls, so here's the latest via Mystery Pollster channeling Gallup and providing a state-by-state map that is so blue it could be mistaken for the Gulf of Lowered Expectations or the Sea of Mendacity:

President Bush's job approval rating returning "to last month's all-time low": 36% approve, 59% disapprove.

Deep inside the numbers is what's really interesting. Another poll reported by Firedoglake shows overwhelming, frothing hatred of Bush by almost half the nation.

The latest Washington Post-ABC News poll showed 47 percent of voters "strongly" disapprove of Bush’s job performance, vs. 20 percent who said they "strongly approve."

These numbers are too close to the numbers reflecting our lack of optimism for the Iraq misadventure to be any kind of coincidence with Gallup saying 57 per cent believe Iraq is not "winnable."

Once it became all too clear that we lost the "Hearts and Minds" of the Iraqi people, Bush lost the hearts and minds of his own citizens.

Chris Kromm, of the great Facing South blog, has taken a look at the Yearly Kos convention and notes that there is going to be a panel discussion called "The Impact of the South on U.S. Politics." He's not impressed:

Well, for starters, what's missing is anyone advocating a truly progressive politics in the South. There are two main views represented here: that progressives should 1) forget the South, or 2) move to the right. As we have argued since Facing South launched over a year ago, these aren't the only options.

The South has a deep progressive tradition, rooted in values such as a sense of place, love of the land, mutual aid, and a healthy populist wariness of unaccountable power. Throughout history, Southern political figures and movements have successfully tapped these rich veins to advance various progressive causes. The fact that the right has been more politically successful -- as it has nationally -- doesn't make these progressive traditions any less real or useful.

Even more importantly, future trends point to Southern politics moving in a more progressive direction: from the fast-growing areas analyst Ruy Teixeira calls "emerging suburbs," to the Latino population, rapidly expanding both in old strongholds like Florida and Texas, but also in new top destinations like Georgia, North Carolina and Virginia.

It's more than a little ironic that [Steve] Jarding and Mudcat [Saunders] are launching a new crusade to attract white guys just as Texas turns into a "majority minority" state, with Georgia and Mississippi not far behind.

The point isn't to dismiss these viewpoints out of hand. Everyone can agree that progressives have to be strategic about where they pour limited resources, and must think about ways to reach those, like "white males," who are growing frustrated with Republican rule (think of the big numbers against the Iraq war in a pro-military state like North Carolina, or Southerners frustrated about losing jobs overseas -- both issues which centrist Democrats have failed to capitalize on thanks to their inability to present coherent alternatives).

Shouldn't the starting point of any debate about the South be: what progressive future do we want for the region, and how do we get there? Sadly, I think the throngs of Yearly Kos attendees won't hear much in the way of innovative thoughts on these vital questions.

From the WSJ, April 14 (sorry, no link):

Mr. Rubin affixed the name of the first Treasury secretary to the "the Hamilton Project," an effort by former Clinton administration officials and sympathizers to devise and promote policies that they describe as "strikingly different from the theories driving current economic policies."

Gosh, that would mean economic policies that actually, you know, work.

The piece quotes current secretary John Snow as pooh-poohing the whole idea. But who cares what he thinks? Compared to Rubin, he's a hack.

Hamilton, says Rubin, "stood for the dual proposition that economic activity should be organized around markets, but that government had an important role in providing many of the requisites for economic success."

This is good stuff. Hamilton, of course, was a Federalist, the polar opposite of the Jeffersonian Republicans (as in "French Republic" or anti-monarchists). In fact, Hamilton and Jefferson detested each other. John Adams represented the middle ground, although the Jeffersonians thought he was simply Hamilton's puppet.

The Hamilton Project, financed by Mr. Rubin and others and housed at the Brookings Institution think tank, argues that prosperity is best achieved by "making economic growth broad-based, by enhancing individual economic security and by embracing a role for effective government in making needed public investments."

Democrats would do well to pay attention to Rubin and his project. It's not for me to say whether or not President Clinton was right when he called Robert Rubin "the greatest Treasury Secretary since Hamilton," but we certainly haven't seen any that were his equal since he left office.

by Mark Adams**

Wow, a real blog. How cool is this.

The biggest challenge filling in for our gracious host is quashing my usual tendency to go on, and on . . . like this. Face it, Ara's got a gift for saying much with very few words.

In that spirit, I'll leave you with this little factoid from another guest poster over at Firedoglake:

The fortress-like compound rising beside the Tigris River here will be the largest of its kind in the world, the size of Vatican City, with the population of a small town, its own defense force, self-contained power and water, and a precarious perch at the heart of Iraq's turbulent future.

The new U.S. Embassy also seems as cloaked in secrecy as the ministate in Rome.

They stand up, we stand down really means when they "stand up" to us.

**You can learn more about Mark at his blog, Dispassionate Liberalism, where you can read much more long-winded dissertations about how the world would be a better place if everyone saw things his way.

During the next week or so, I will be re-running a few pieces that have proven to be popular over time.

In additon, Mark Adams will be sitting in for me, covering current events and stirring things up in my absence.

More on Iran below. But first this write-up from Ron Brownstein:

By a solid 2-1 margin, those surveyed said they would prefer such a comprehensive approach [to immigration reform], which a bipartisan group of senators has proposed, to an enforcement-only strategy, which the House of Representatives approved in December. Support for a comprehensive approach was about the same among Democrats, independents and Republicans, the poll found.

[...]

Although President Bush's job approval rating was essentially unchanged from his 38% showing last month, the new poll found Democrats opening double-digit leads on the key measures of voters' early preferences for the November balloting.

[...]

Democrats lead Republicans 49% to 35% among registered voters who were asked which party they intended to support in their congressional districts this fall. When registered voters were asked which party they hoped would control the House and Senate after the midterm election, 51% picked the Democrats and 38% the GOP.

And Doyle McManus has the story on Iran:

Americans are divided over the prospect of U.S. military action against Iran if the government in Tehran continues to pursue nuclear technology — and a majority do not trust President Bush to make the "right decision" on that issue, a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll has found.

Kinky Friedman's got some new campaign videos.

I voted for McCain once. Never, ever again:

When Jean Diamond asked Sen. John McCain a polite but tough question about federal spending last weekend, McCain turned churlish.

"I'm not getting anything I really need and my grandchildren are getting saddled with $9 trillion in debt," said Diamond, a Keene retiree. "Why should I vote Republican?"

Because, McCain replied, Democrats have also voted to increase federal spending.

"Maybe," the Arizona Republican suggested, "you should vote for the vegetarians."

Diamond was not amused by McCain's sarcasm. "Republicans are in charge of three Houses," she snapped back. "You have no excuse."

McCain shook his head. "Yes, ma'am," he said, peering at the 500 people gathered at the town meeting. "I knew we should have cut this thing off."

McCain can be charmingly funny. But I'd pay a dollar right now to know whether anyone laughed at that last crack.

Miss Julie and I are residents of Louisiana...and you might as well be, too.

The difference is, we're grappling with Bush's response to a mega-disaster RIGHT NOW, whereas you can only HOPE he'll be there when YOU need him.

The Bush administration has requested or received approval from Congress for $3.5 billion in levee improvements, and none of those plans require state contributions. At the same time, fiscal conservatives have grown increasingly impatient with the growth of federal spending.

Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) mocked the request for state funding toward the additional $2.5 billion and said the administration should say when it will ask for the money.

"It's like the man who throws you a 30-foot rope when you're drowning 50 feet from shore and says he's gone more than halfway," said Landrieu, who has vowed to block Senate action on Bush nominations to non-defense and judicial posts until the issue is resolved. "A noble gesture, perhaps, but it doesn't get the job done."

The announcement also leaves unresolved the fate of lower Plaquemines Parish, a rural strip of land that counted nearly 15,000 residents before the storm.

Administration officials said they are still weighing whether to spend an additional $1.6 billion for levee improvements there.

Yeah, I can hear some of you thinking, "Well, gosh, it was a natural disaster. What does that have to do with Bush?" Well, if you didn't know what happened, the devastation would SEEM as though it were caused by a suitcase nuke. Seriously. Watch the video below.

That said, would Bush's response, the rubber-stamp Republican Congress' response, would their response have been any different had we been struck by terrorists?

If your answer is yes, then what the hell are you thinking? The houses are just as damaged; the levees are just as devastated; the people are just as dead; the homeless still don't have a place to live.

If the answer is no, then you might as well get used to the idea that Louisiana is coming soon, to a neighborhood near you.

FDR, from a fireside chat in April, 1942:

The blunt fact is that every single person in the United States is going to be affected by this program. Some of you will be affected more directly by one or two of these restrictive measures, but all of you will be affected indirectly by all of them.

Are you a business man, or do you own stock in a business corporation? Well, your profits are going to be cut down to a reasonably low level by taxation. Your income will be subject to higher taxes. Indeed in these days, when every available dollar should go to the war effort, I do not think that any American citizen should have a net income in excess of $25,000 per year after payment of taxes....

As I told the Congress yesterday, "sacrifice" is not exactly the proper word with which to describe this program of self-denial. When, at the end of this great struggle we shall have saved our free way of life, we shall have made no "sacrifice."

As it turns out, $25 thousand in 1942 works out to $300 thousand in 2006 dollars.

So, if Bush realllllllllllly wants to be another FDR (like he says), then let him say that no American citizen should have a net income in excess of $300 thousand until the war on terror is over.

After all, at the end of this great struggle, if we have saved our free way of life, we shall have made no "sacrifice."

Who'll be the first one to cry the bitter tears of class warfare now? Any takers?

P.S. They won't have Tom DeLay to provide them any cover: ''Nothing is more important in the face of a war,'' declared Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, ''than cutting taxes.''

(HT to Moonboots)

From the US State Department's own Web site:

Iran is likely years away from producing weapons-grade plutonium or highly enriched uranium. Vice Adm. Jacoby, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, told the Senate Armed Services Committee in March 2005 that Iran is expected to be able to produce a weapon early next decade. According to one report, the new National Intelligence Estimate on Iran assesses that it will be ten years before Iran has a bomb.

That said, here are six points Democrats need to be making RIGHT NOW:

1. Slow down, we've got ten years.
   
2. We can wait seven months until the congressional elections this fall.
   
3. Bush and the rubber-stamp Republican Congress got it wrong on Iraq's WMD. Why should we believe them now?
   
4. George Bush and the rubber-stamp Republican Congress are the wrong ones to be launching yet another conventional war, let alone a nuclear one.
   
5. There is no reason to go to war until Bush has left office.
   
6. What military and what money are we going to use to launch a war against Iran?

(HT to John)

There he goes again.

Yesterday, I observed that Karl Rove's MO is to find the weak spot in his own candidate and then attack his opponent for being guilty of the same failing.

And today, sure enough, right on cue, we read this:

"We are engaged in a diplomatic process with our European partners and the United Nations to keep [Iran] from developing [nuclear weapons]," Karl Rove, deputy White House chief of staff, told an audience of business people at the Houston Forum.

"It's going to be difficult. It's going to be tough because they are led by ideologues who have a weird sense of history," he said.

That's funny! He called them Ideologues with a weird sense of history! Bwahahahahaha!

Rove said his characterization of Ahmadinejad was based on statements the Iranian president made after speaking to the United Nations.

"Ahmadinejad spoke to the United Nations and afterwards was quoted as saying that for the 23 minutes that he spoke, there was a halo around his head that transfixed the audience and caused them to be completely focused on his message," he said.

Bwahahaha! Reminds me of the time Bush said, "God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did..."

Rove noted, however, that world leaders speaking before the U.N. General Assembly are often watched attentively in silence by the delegates. Rove said that President George W. Bush, for instance, says that speaking to the General Assembly is like appearing before a "waxworks."

Yeah. They were stunned, absolutely gob-smacked, by the fact that Bush actually got elected President of the United States.

"This guy (Ahmadinejad) had the sense that he was mystically empowered and as a result transfixed the audience -- that is not a rational human being to deal with," he said.

"God told me to strike at al-Qaeda..." Bwahahahahahaha!

On April 12th 1961, 45 years ago today, Soviet cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin became the first human to travel into space. Two decades later, astronauts John Young and Robert Crippen flew America's first Space Shuttle flight into orbit. And tonight, commemorations of human space travel will take place all over the world: Yuri's Night. 86 parties in 32 countries!

(HT to Xeni)

The 50th Congressional district of California was represented for years by Republican Congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham -- that is, until he was thrown in jail for corruption.

Then, yesterday, the district held a special election to replace him.

The district leans Republican. But Francine Busby, the Democrat, had a shot at the seat. Under the rules already in place, she needed 51% of the vote in order to avoid a run-off against any one of several Republicans who also ran for the seat.

She missed, only getting 44%, about what Gore and Kerry got in the last two Presidential elections. In other words, the Republicans got the majority of the vote. As a result, Busby faces an uphill battle when the district elects someone in November to serve a full term.

What happened? Two words: turnout sucked.

Kos:

My sense of pessimism for November's elections only gets deeper the more elections show lower and lower turnout. Our supporters have stopped giving a shit. They were burned three elections in a row, and seeing nothing different come from the leadership, it has become easier for them to tune out.

There has got to be change in strategy from DC. Because right now, the Democratic leadership is just as reality-addled as the GOP's.

Jay Cost:

...this is the type of seat the Democrats need to capture to take the House. As a matter of fact, they will have to win tougher seats than CA 50. With a Democratic loss there, it will become harder to see a Democratic victory in open seats like IL 06, MN 06 and WI 08. These are similar in their partisan composition to CA 50 -- but, unlike CA 50, none of them have a Republican incumbent tarnished by scandal and none of them have 13 Republican candidates fighting among themselves. These open seats need to switch to the Democrats for a change in control. A Democratic takeover of the House with CA 50, IL 06, MN 06 and WI 08 off the table is unimaginable.

Yeah, I know: surveys show an historic, massive spread (15+ points) between those who SAY they will vote for the Dem candidate versus the Republican candidate.

But that doesn't mean squat. It's like I always say: don't watch what people say, watch what they do.

In a few months, we'll be going to the polls to elect a new Congress. I urge you to do what you can to get people to the polls. Turnout is key. You KNOW how good the Republicans are at getting their base to the polls. We have to be even better than that.

So this is a wake-up call, people. We're going to have to redouble our efforts. We are going to have to do everything we can to make our voters get to the polls.

Legal Battle Brewing Between Dwarf Kiss Tribute Bands, MiniKiss v. Tiny Kiss...

I know it's fashionable for Republicans to pretend they don't know who Newt Gingrich is anymore. That said, these comments must have raised some eyebrows, especially among Murtha-bashing Republicans in the House:

Newt Gingrich, the former Republican Speaker of the House, told students and faculty at the University of South Dakota Monday that the United States should pull out of Iraq and leave a small force there, just as it did post-war in Korea and Germany.

"It was an enormous mistake for us to try to occupy that country after June of 2003," Gingrich said during a question-and-answer session at the school. "We have to pull back, and we have to recognize it."

Gingrich is just the latest Republican to sign on to what Jack Murtha was saying (and being castigated for) months and months ago.

Murtha's view has now become a mainstream, moderate position.

Digby:

...the Republicans may be at the end of their looting spree. They made their money, got their judges, their tax cuts and their wars. Now it's time to put the past behind us and make nice nice. We're supposed to end to all this nastiness and forgive and forget. For the good of the country, of course.

P.S. I couldn't resist this related tidbit...

Have you ever noticed that Karl Rove is the master of finding his own candidate's weakness then accusing his opponent of it first? He's done it countless times over the years, the most famous example being the Swiftboating of John Kerry.

Now this:

I heard Karl Rove speaking to the Republican Lawyers Association on Friday (via C-Span) and he was going on and on and on about how the Democrats are cheating in elections. He cited "case" after "case" in which Democrats are disenfranchising Republicans all over the country. It's shocking: the voter fraud, the throwing out of Republicans absentee ballots, the partisan vote count manipulation. He's very worried about the integrity of our elections and thinks Republicans will be at a permanent disadvantage is something isn't done. I kid you not.

Think voters will fall for it again? We must not assume they won't.

From the Times:

In the event that the woman's illegal abortion went badly and the doctors have to perform a hysterectomy, then the uterus is sent to the Forensic Institute, where the government's doctors analyze it and retain custody of her uterus as evidence against her.

P.S. The woman can get 30-50 years if the fetus was deemed "viable."

(HT to Tristero)

From the LA Daily News:

Mayvis Coyle, 82, was shuffling with her cane across busy Foothill Boulevard while a traffic police officer watched and waited.

And watched and waited.

Even before Coyle finished crossing the intersection at Woodward Avenue, he had scribbled a $114 ticket for crossing against a don't-walk signal. "I entered the crosswalk, it was green," said Coyle, of Sunland, who is fighting the infraction issued Feb. 15. "It turned red before I could get over. There he was, waiting, the motorcycle cop.

"He said, `You're obstructing the flow of traffic."'

Would it have killed him to walk into the intersection and escort her the rest of the way?

Guy in Malaysia gets $218 trillion dollar phone bill.

Sy Hersh writes about about plans for a possible preemptive nuclear strike on Iran:

A government consultant with close ties to the civilian leadership in the Pentagon said that Bush was "absolutely convinced that Iran is going to get the bomb" if it is not stopped. He said that the President believes that he must do "what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do," and "that saving Iran is going to be his legacy."

I guess Bush's other legacy stuff kind of, you know, flopped.

Seriously, though -- whatever happened to the doctrine of mutually assured destruction? IIRC, it worked for 50 years on the Soviets, and they had quite a few more nukes than Iran (who may not have any nukes at all).

P.S. Yes, that is Slim Pickens in his iconic role as Major T. J. "King" Kong in Dr. Strangelove. And speaking of Slim Pickens, how could we forget his role in Blazing Saddles?

And speaking of that classic Mel Brooks movie, here's a trivia question for you scholars of the Hebrew language:

What does the writing on Mel Brooks's headband actually say?

[click the image to get a closer look]

Since Passover is just around the corner, the winner gets a box of matzah.

Lt Gen Gregory Newbold was once the Director of Operations at the Pentagon. He retired in December 2002, four months before the invasion of Iraq.

Writing in Time, he says that he has a lot of regrets about not speaking out more forcefully against the war in Iraq while it was in its planning stages. He also doesn't care for Condi Rice:

...Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's recent statement that "we" made the "right strategic decisions" but made thousands of "tactical errors" is an outrage. It reflects an effort to obscure gross errors in strategy by shifting the blame for failure to those who have been resolute in fighting. The truth is, our forces are successful in spite of the strategic guidance they receive, not because of it...

This is getting ugly now.

Add that to reports that the Pentagon brass is reeeeeallllllllly upset about plans to use nukes in Iran, well, it sounds like the wheels are coming off the wagon.

Who's in charge here?

Two headlines:

Bush Blames Reid for bill's failure

...and:

More than 1 million expected to participate in protests across US

Heh. Do you think they're protesting Harry Reid's intransigence? Nope. They're protesting the House Republican version of "immigration reform," a bill Reid is against and Bush is ... well, what the hell IS Bush for anymore except saving his own hide?

P.S. The collapse of the Senate immigration bill and the collapse of the House Budget bill are examples of what happens when a President's approval rating falls to all-time lows.

P.S.S. From The Note:

Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) will address the DC rally on the National Mall at 4:30 pm ET. He is expected to address head-on the enforcement-only immigration bill passed by the House. Sen. Kennedy will be joined by AFL-CIO President John Sweeney and other labor leaders.

Sen. Kennedy is expected to tell the crowd that the Republican House bill is wrong because it will make America less secure.

Remember back when Karl Rove had super-powers?

My favorite moments from last night's episode of The West Wing:

• Donna and Josh, stricken, riding the elevator up to find God-knows-what about Leo's condition and having to listen to the Muzak version of Ma Cherie Amour. Time really does stand still at moments like this.

• Lou arguing that they cannot release a statement about Leo's collapse because undecided voters on the West Coast will use this as an excuse to vote against Santos. "And another reason you can't release a statement," she says, "is that when Leo comes back, he'll kick your ass!" And you know he would, too.

• The networks call California for Vinick and Oregon for Santos; it all comes down to Nevada. Santos: "Nevada? I have a vague memory of campaigning there once." Josh: "Yeah...Maybe we should have moved you there a year ago. You know, gotten you a gig a Caesar's Palace."

• Josh, alone in the war room while Santos makes his victory speech, coloring Nevada blue and bringing the electoral vote total to 272. He turns to a snapshot of Leo on the bulletin board and says, "Thanks, boss."

Those are the ones that come to mind. How 'bout you?

P.S. Where was Toby??

John Kerry proposes some deadlines:

Iraqi politicians should be told that they have until May 15 to put together an effective unity government or we will immediately withdraw our military.

If Iraqis aren't willing to build a unity government in the five months since the election, they're probably not willing to build one at all. The civil war will only get worse, and we will have no choice anyway but to leave.

If Iraq's leaders succeed in putting together a government, then we must agree on another deadline: a schedule for withdrawing American combat forces by year's end.

Doing so will empower the new Iraqi leadership, put Iraqis in the position of running their own country and undermine support for the insurgency, which is fueled in large measure by the majority of Iraqis who want us to leave their country. Only troops essential to finishing the job of training Iraqi forces should remain.

You want a plan? There's a plan as good as anything anyone else has proposed.

Kevin Drum pieces it together and it makes more sense than anything else I've read so far.

Summary:

When someone [Frist] has suckered you [Reid] enough times, you demand guarantees before you'll make another deal with him. If all you get is sweet talk, you know the fix is in and you walk away. Reid walked away, and it was the right thing to do.

I've mostly stayed away from the Plame scandal simply because so much of what gets reported is "inside baseball." You know, stuff that lawyers and pundits and Beltway barking heads like to argue about, but don't really affect you and me.

But this is different:

President Bush authorized White House official I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby to disclose highly sensitive intelligence information to the news media in an attempt to discredit a CIA adviser whose views undermined the rationale for the invasion of Iraq, according to a federal prosecutor's account of Libby's testimony to a grand jury.

Yes. Well.

Did the President break the law releasing this information? Probably not -- he can declassify at will. But here's the question people must be asking themselves this morning:

"Why is the President using his powers as Commander-in-Chief to attack his political enemies?" Hint: there is no good answer to this question.

This goes waaaaaaay beyond "inside baseball." This can't be explained away with a nuanced answer. First of all, most people in the country don't do nuance. All the weasel words in the dictionary can't hide the reality that is as plain as the (lengthening) nose on Bush's face.

Here's how it'll probably play out during the next several news cycles...

The public looks around at the conduct of the war and sees that it is going badly, very badly. And not only that -- instead of punishing the enemy, the Commander in Chief is attacking (wait for it) American citizens who disagree with him.

And -- he's lying about it:

Three months before Fitzgerald began his probe in December 2003, Bush said at a news conference that "I've constantly expressed my displeasure with leaks, particularly leaks of classified information. . . . If there's a leak out of the administration, I want to know who it is. And if a person has violated law, the person will be taken care of."

While he was looking for the perp, he skipped looking in the mirror. Like they say, "We have met the enemy and he is us."

Yeah, I know what you're thinking: "It wasn't a leak! He didn't do anything wrong!" Or you might even agree with the White House spin this morning:

"By definition, the president cannot leak," [a Senior Administration Official] said. "He has the inherent authority to declassify something. . . It's like accusing a shopkeeper of shoplifting from himself."

Actually what Bush did was like a shopkeeper shoplifting from himself and blaming the crime on an innocent bystander. Whatever.

The fact is, the public doesn't do nuance. Americans are a pretty common-sensical, down-to-earth, practical, and fair-minded people. They recognize weasel-words when they hear them.

The bottom line is that Bush is revealed as a petty, vindictive tyrant who is (while Iraq burns) using the great and powerful levers of the office of the Presidency to attack his political enemies.

The conclusion is simple: Bush is NOT doing everything he can to protect us. He is doing everything he can to protect himself.

He's like the weasel who tramples women and children during a fire alarm in order to get out the door first.

Uh-oh. Looks like someone told the Emperor he has no clothes:

A man who identified himself as Harry Taylor rose at a forum [in Charlotte, NC] to tell Bush that he's never felt more ashamed of the leadership of his country. He said Bush has asserted his right to tap phone calls without a warrant, to arrest people and hold them without charges and to revoke a woman's right to an abortion, among other things.

He was booed by the audience, but Bush interrupted and urged the audience to let Taylor finish.

"I feel like despite your rhetoric, that compassion and common sense have been left far behind during your administration," Taylor said, standing in a balcony seat and looking down at Bush on stage. "And I would hope from time to time that you have the humility and grace to be ashamed of yourself."

Bush defended the National Security Adminsitration's surveillance program, saying he authorized the program to protect the country.

"You said would I apologize for that?" Bush told him. "The answer is absolutely not."

I don't care how resolute Bush sounded, this exchange was bad, bad, bad for a President with a 36% approval rating.

Chris Matthews schmoozes his best buddy, Tom DeLay, just before Hardball goes on the air.

P.S. Watch DeLay's eyes glitter when the topic turns to Hillary.

[Click image to watch video]

(HT to Harry Shearer)

As you know, I am a resident of Louisiana -- and you are too, because (four years after 9/11) Bush's response to Katrina shows that the entire country is STILL not prepared for a major disaster emergency.

Now, Louisiana's senior senator, Mary Landrieu, has had enough:

Frustrated by a lack of progress in rebuilding the state's levees, a Louisiana Democrat threatened Wednesday to block President Bush's appointments requiring Senate confirmation until "significant progress" is made toward restoring the flood protection damaged by Hurricane Katrina in August.

[...]

"For me, this used to be a major policy issue," she said. "Now, it's an issue of life and death."

The senator said she sent a letter to Bush on Tuesday and "urged him specifically to request of Congress $6 billion that his administration says that we need in order for our region to be safe."

If the White House fails to meet her demands, "I will be compelled to use the power of my office as a senator to hold all executive nominations until we can get a response from the administration."

There was no immediate response from the White House.

Blocking or failing to act on executive appointments may not be the only pressure she applies, she warned. "I have other leverage, and I'm prepared to use it if I have to."

Her primary leverage is that she is a member of the so-called "Gang of 14," the coalition of moderate Republicans and Democrats that seem to hold the balance of power in the US Senate.

I haven't always been pleased with Landrieu's actions recently (her vote for cloture on the Alito nomination was a major disappointment) but this is the right move for her state.

Tom Delay delivers his farewell speech:

He said was "looking forward to being liberated outside the House, doing whatever I can to unify the conservative cause."

I am quite pleased to hear this. Tom Delay is the poster child for the corrupt Republican majority in Congress. The more we see of him between now and November, the better.

And by the way, if you're still wondering why he would quit so abruptly -- follow the money:

In an interview Monday with The Galveston County Daily News in Texas, DeLay said his change of mind was based partly on a poll taken after the March Republican primary that showed him only narrowly ahead of Democrat Nick Lampson.

"Even though I thought I could win, it was a little too risky," the paper quoted him as saying.

By quitting now, doesn't he get to "convert" the money in his campaign warchest into a legal defense fund? [Note: Yes, to the tune of $1.2 million.]

The Republicans are putting on a brave face after this latest Delay bombshell:

Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, who succeeded DeLay in his leadership post earlier this year. "He has served our nation with integrity and honor," Boehner said.

That tells me everything I need to know about John Boehner and the rest of the House Republicans.

DeLay called President Bush on Monday and the two talked while the president was flying on Air Force One on his way back from Cincinnati, White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Tuesday.

"The president thanked him for his service and all that he accomplished and wished him all the best," McClellan said. "Congressman DeLay has been a good ally whom the president has worked very closely with."

And that, if you didn't already know, tells you everything you need to know about George W. Bush.

Georgia10 has more:

Tom DeLay's resignation cannot absolve the Republican Party of its sins. The "Hammer," who chipped away at the integrity and effectiveness of Congress until there was nothing left, listened to his party rather than his ego and has finally acknowledged that he was one of many albatrosses hanging on the neck of the struggling GOP. His resignation does not save this party.

What is done cannot be undone. Not as long as this Republican Party maintains its majority status. The stench of Tom DeLay's corruption still wafts through the halls of Congress. His political philosophy--that fair is foul and foul is fair--thrives on, as vibrant as ever in the deeds of the Majority.

That such a man will no longer serve in Congress is cause to rejoice. But the tragic truth remains. From this man and his cabal was spawned a system of corruption which survives his political demise. DeLay leaves, yet he leaves a Congress full of Tom DeLay Republicans behind. It is a Congress so steeped in corruption that it cannot, by the exodus of one man, turn back to its purpose of serving the people rather than serving itself.

Yeah, it's kind of like what happens when your toilets backs up and floods your house. You can remove the clog and get the water to flush clear again, but you still have to clean up the mess, you know?

P.S. I know it's just trivia, but who do you think called Delay and told him it was time to step down? There are only a handful of Washington Republicans more powerful than Delay -- Cheney, Rove and Bush.

Which one of them called him, d'ya think?

P.P.S. It seems to me there are three groups of people with opinions on Delay's demise:

1. Those that say "A good man did a bad thing and was hounded from office by his enemies."
   
2. Those that say "Good riddance to bad rubbish."
   
3. Those that say "Ding dong, the witch is dead!"

I wonder how each of those opinions would poll between now and November in Sugar Land, TX.

Fareed Zakaria:

"The income gap between the United States and Mexico is the largest between any two contiguous countries in the world," writes Stanford historian David Kennedy. That huge disparity is producing massive demand in the United States and massive supply from Mexico and Central America.

Whenever governments try to come between these two forces -- think of drugs -- simply increasing enforcement does not work. Tighter border control is an excellent idea, but to work, it will have to be coupled with some recognition of the laws of supply and demand -- that is, it will have to include expansion of the legal immigrant pool.

[Note: Great minds think alike.]

Beyond the purely economic issue, however, there is the much deeper one that defines America -- to itself, to its immigrants and to the world. How do we want to treat those who are already in this country, working and living with us? How do we want to treat those who come in on visas or guest permits? These people must have some hope, some reasonable path to becoming Americans. Otherwise we are sending a signal that there are groups of people who are somehow unfit to be Americans, that these newcomers are not really welcome and that what we want are workers, not potential citizens. And we will end up with immigrants who have similarly cold feelings about America.

He broke the news to Chris Matthews. How appropriate.

P.S. By this time next month, there won't be a single Republican who will even cop to remembering his name.

P.P.S. Watch for him to pull a Chuck Colson.

By now, perhaps you've probably seen or heard what General Zinni had to say when he appeared on Meet The Press on Sunday. Here's what struck me when I read the transcript:

MR. RUSSERT: The president's dream is democracy, around the world and the Middle East. What happens to countries like Iraq, countries like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, or in the Palestine area when Hamas is elected? Does democracy necessarily bring about a desired result from America's security interests?

GEN. ZINNI: Well, first of all, you have to understand how you instill democracy. It isn't an election. An election doesn't equal democracy. Think about it. We need an educated electorate. We need political parties that are transparent, that people understand their platforms, that compete in a fair process. We have to have a governmental system that people are voting into, and they have to understand that, and then you can have elections. We've sort of reversed the process.

Look what's happened in Iraq. We've had three elections now, and we don't have a government yet that can stand up. There aren't people that, I think, really understood what they voted for.

I saw a scene in Basra, one of the elections, where a woman ran in so excited about voting, and then she asked the poll tender, "Who do I vote for?" And he told her she -- he couldn't tell her, but he had to read a list to her of 169 parties. She was confused. When he hit number seven that said the Islamic party of something or other, she said, "That's the one."

I mean, is that democracy? Are they voting how they're told at, at Friday prayers? Are they voting for sectarian leaders that dominate their lives? Do they truly understand what it's all about?

It's not just democracy. It's economic development. It's social reform. This takes time, takes an investment from the stable part of the world and the unstable part of the world to establish these.

I don't know about you, but I believe Zinni's comments apply to us, here in America, just as much as they do to people in Iraq, or anywhere else.

In the aftermath of the Challenger explosion in 1986, I recall someone (perhaps Richard Feynman?) saying that when something that big goes so wrong, there isn't a single cause for it. This is true simply because NASA engineers things with so many failsafe systems that if Plan A fails, there is a Plan B and a Plan C.

Which brings me to Iraq.

I saw this today in The Note:

A former Administration official [Ara: Colin Powell?] summed up the three years of the Iraq war as three successive kinds of failure: "There was an intellectual failure at the start. There was an implementation failure after that. And now there's a failure of political will."

Problem is, the first two failures make the third failure almost a lock.

And without political will, nothing is possible.

Which brings me to William F. Buckley:

William F. Buckley Jr., the longtime conservative writer and leader, said George W. Bush's presidency will be judged entirely by the outcome of a war in Iraq that is now a failure.

"Mr. Bush is in the hands of a fortune that will be unremitting on the point of Iraq," Buckley said in an interview that will air on Bloomberg Television this weekend. "If he'd invented the Bill of Rights it wouldn't get him out of his jam."

Perhaps not. Instead, Bush's plan is to destroy the Bill Rights in order to get out of "his jam" -- and it might just work for him.

Buckley said he doesn't have a formula for getting out of Iraq, though he said ``it's important that we acknowledge in the inner councils of state that it (the war) has failed, so that we should look for opportunities to cope with that failure.''

The 80-year-old Buckley is among a handful of prominent conservatives who are criticizing the war. Asked who is to blame for what he deems a failure, Buckley said, "the president," adding that "he doesn't hesitate to accept responsibility."

Really? When did that happen?

Buckley called Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, a longtime friend, "a failed executor" of the war. And Vice President Dick Cheney "was flatly misled," Buckley said. "He believed the business about the weapons of mass destruction."

Flatly mislead? By who? George Tenet? Is that why Tenet got a medal? As for calling Rumsfeld an "executor," here's your definition of the word: "Someone who is responsible for carrying out a task." Right.

So here's the shorter Bill Buckley: Bush blew it but took the blame. Rumsfeld was just following orders. And Cheney was a dope.