A new poll was taken during Tuesday's primaries, in which half of all Democratic voters said that, if their preferred candidate does not win the nomination, they will vote for McCain in the general election instead.

Honestly, I don't find those results surprising at all. I've long suspected that 50% of Democrats, if not more, are liars.

B., loyal reader and master of reverse psychology, recently urged me to "Please please please stop writing about politics," adding "you don't have any insight I couldn't get from any other other blog equipped 30 something urban liberal guy."

True, true enough. But B., you are not thinking this all the way through. Since you already read this site, isn't it convenient that I summarize the insights of all 30-something urban liberal guy blogs, freeing you from having to read them in addition to my own?

Once I integrate celebrity gossip, LOLCATS, and fawning reviews of Apple products into my posting schedule, this will become the only pitstop you ever need take in the blogosphere. That's a little something we call "value-added service."

Don't Think Of An Elephant

The whole Elliot Spitzer debacle happened during my blogging hiatus, but someone wanted to know my opinion of it. Well, my opinion on scandals of this nature has remained fairly consistent throughout my adult, political life: I DO NOT WANT TO THINK ABOUT OLD WHITE GUYS HAVING SEX SO STOP TRICKING ME INTO DOING SO! I don't want to think about Spitzer having sex, or Larry Craig having sex, or Gray Davis having sex, or Jerry Falwell having sex, or Bill Clinton having something that was not strictly sex pursuant to the legal definition provided in statute §§21050, etc. I don't care who or what they are having sex with because thinking about this aspect of the sex would involve thinking about the sex, which, as I have stated previously, I do not wish to do. Please, can we just assign a taxpayer-funded hooker to every member of congress to ensure that these liaisons become so routine that they are no longer newsworthy?

Stop! Grammar Time!

In a speech recently, Obama said the following:

We cannot prevail until we reduce our commitment in Iraq, which will allow us to do what I called for last August: providing at least two additional combat brigades to support our efforts in Afghanistan. This increased commitment in turn can be used to leverage greater assistance--with less, uh, fewer restrictions--from our NATO allies.

Hell, he ought to just adopt that as his bumper sticker slogan.

If I catch him correctly referring to "data" as a plural, I may well swoon.

The Neverending Story

Listening to NPR the other evening, they had a story about how the Bush administration desperately needed to, I dunno, read some eight year-old girl's diary or something, to protect us all from TERRORISM and TERROR and possibly also TERRARIUMS. And they had some Bush flunky on there going on and on about how terrorists were RIGHT THIS SECOND planning to poison the nation's supply of fillet-o-fishes, and the only thing we, as a nation, could do to stop them to give Bush the authority to do whatever he wants, up to and including drilling in ANWR and abandonment of the longstanding tradition of US Presidents wearing pants.

At some point it occurred to me that the White House's depiction of terrorism has now become so at odds with reality that they might as well be warning us about gelatinous cubes. And, having thought this, I could no longer not hear the phrase "gelatinous cube" whenever this guy spoke, e.g., "The NSA's Gelatinous Cube Surveillance Program is a vital tool for preventing gelatinous cube attacks here at home and preventing the spread of gelatinous cubism worldwide." And you know they'll be hyping the threat of owlbears again before the 2008 election.

Going For A Dip

Speaking of which ...

At the aquatics center Squiggle and I frequent they have a bulletin board near the pool, on which they often post news articles relating to swimming. Yesterday it featured a page from the local paper's recent "Living" section, with the 36-point headline "WATERPROOFING YOUR CHILDREN." Except, for one crazy moment when I first glanced at it, I thought it said "WATERBOARDING YOUR CHILDREN" and was all like "Really? It's come to this?"

Headline News, January 20, 2009

Tired of the protracted Democratic fight for the Presidential nomination? Want to pretend we're already in the general election phase of the campaign? Why, just head on over to Snopes for a preview of what things will be like six months from now:

• Illinois senator Barack Obama is a "radical Muslim" who "will not recite the Pledge of Allegiance."
• Barack Obama was sworn into office on the Quran.
• Barack Obama's church has a "non-negotiable commitment to Africa" that is covertly Muslim and excludes non-blacks.
• Barack Obama's presidential campaign is being funded by Hugo Chávez.
• Barack Obama has been endorsed for President of the U.S. by the Ku Klux Klan

It's hard to pick a favorite, but "The Book of Revelation describes the anti-Christ as someone with characteristics matching those of Barack Obama" is definitely in the running:

According to the Book of Revelations the anti-christ is: The anti-christ will be a man, in his 40s, of MUSLIM descent, who will deceive the nations with persuassive language, and have a MASSIVE Christ-like appeal.... the prophecy says that people will flock to him and he will promise false hope and world peace, and when he is in power, will destory everything. Is it OBAMA??

Mrs Clinton still has the edge among super-delegates, not least because Bill Clinton is calling in all the favours he has done them over the past 16 years ...

1. You call in favors, and use your influence as a former President, to convince superdelegates to vote for your wife instead of the man who wins the popular vote;
2. Said wife loses in the general election;
3. That roaring you hear is the sound of your legacy being flushed down the crapper.

Just a thought!

The November election is a long ways away. So, here: I made you a little cheatsheet!

P.s. I TOLD YOU FOOLS TO VOTE DODD!

Only after he dropped out of the presidential race, admittedly ...

Two candidates abandoned their bids for the White House, today.

First, Rudy "9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11 9/11" Giuliani, who was the national frontrunner as recently as four months ago:

Some say that he ran a poor campaign, but I think the whole thing was a painstakingly orchestrated business move. Having learned, in wake of September 11th, that he could make astronomical speaking fees for being associated with disaster, he figured another debacle on his resume could only help.

And we also bid farewell to John "Wait, you're running for president?" Edwards:

Edwards said the decision to withdraw was a tough one, but he wanted to devote more time to his 2012 presidential campaign.

Sometime people who read my site ask for advice. I guess that's redundant--obviously anyone who asks me for advice would have to be a reader, as anyone who has met me in real life would know better.

Long time reader here... I'm in SC and an pretty much an independent in terms of politics. I chose not to vote in the Republican primary as all of them turn my stomach and will vote in this Saturday's Democratic primary instead. I am thinking of my vote as more of a vote against Hillary than a vote for anyone. What are your thoughts in terms of this and who do you think is the lesser of two evils: Edwards or Obama? I am leaning towards Edwards, the bajillionaire attorney suckling on the teet of Big Tobacco vs Obama. Anyway, I actually find your insight on politics more understandable, interesting, and insightful than the most pundits. So if you could spare a moment and share your thoughts, that'd be great. :)

Warm regards,

Betsey

Hi!

The conservative argument against taxes, in a nutshell, is this: it is fairer and more efficient if people are allowed to keep their own money to spend on those things they know they need, rather than to require them to hand it over to a Government to spend on what it thinks the citizenry needs. Given what you've told me, i would encourage you to vote for Obama for essentially the same reason.

Of the remaining Democratic candidates, Edwards is, in my opinion, the most suited for the presidency. But if the last few weeks have shown us anything, it's (a) Edwards is not going to win, and (b) he's not going to drop out going to drop out on Wednesday, January 30th, you heard it here first. So why is remaining in the race at all. Many (including myself) think it's to become a kingmaker, of sorts; if neither Clinton or Obama collect enough delegates to win the nomination (a majority), Edwards could offer his accumulated delegates to one of them in exchange for something he wants: the vice-presidency, the inclusion of one of his signature issues into their platform, or the like.

Now, if you really like Edwards or the issues he fights for, then voting for him still makes sense, as it might result in his going to the White House as Veep, or having his signature issues adopted by whomever becomes the eventual nominee. But if your goal is simply to ensure that Hillary doesn't get the nod, then it's obvious to me that you should vote for Obama. After all, any votes (and, by extension, delegates) that go to Edwards could wind up in Hillary's ledger eventually, if Edwards brokers a deal with her at some point, drops out and endorses her, etc.

I'm glossing over a lot, here (like the fact that Edwards can't simply "give" his delegates to someone else), but the gist of it is this: you can "spend" your vote on Obama, or you can give it to Edwards and run the risk that he might "spend" it on a candidate you don't really want.

Cheers,
Matthew

By the way, I'm completely sympathetic to the idea that people ought to be able to vote for whomever they choose, even for someone (like Edwards) who seemingly doesn't have a hope of winning. I agree! People ought to be able to do that! But the point is largely academic until this nation implements instant runoff voting, something I would love to see in my lifetime.

How about them Iowa Caucuses, huh?

Obama

In victory speech, Barak Obama called last Thursday "a defining moment in history"--presumably because it marked the first occasion in which a political prediction of mine actually came to pass. Although I said he'd win by "a significant (if not sizable) margin in Iowa," and winning by eight percentage points strikes me as fairly sizable, so perhaps I'm still batting .000 after all.

After Obama's speech, the NPR pundits were predicting GOP fratricide in the wake of Huckabee's victory, and I had a lovely little daydream about all the Republican candidates turning on one another with such virulence that they somehow all lose, allowing Obama to waltz into the Oval office unchallenged. Sort of like a modern day "Millions Of Cats":

Edwards

Many assumed that my calling the election for Obama implied that I was rooting for him. Well, I am, kinda. But only because my first choice, Gore, has decided to spend this election home playing Blocksum on his three 30" monitors; my second choice, Dodd, has, after a year of campaigning, managed to become as widely known as the gaffer on Daddy Day Camp; and my third choice, Edwards, has as much chance of getting elected president as I do of opening a line of Southern California Taco Trucks called "defective yummy" ("We Put The Eat Into Burrito!").

Edwards was my man in 2004, and I still contend that he cwould have won, had he been nominated. But, to my mind, he's been a moderately terrible candidate this time around. For one thing, I can't help but wonder what he's been doing since 2004--and the only conclusion I can come to is: running for president. Which means, really, he's been running for President for five or six straight years, to the apparent exclusion of all other activities. And it doesn't help when he says that the presidency is "his calling." He's pursuing the White House with such zeal that, were it a girl, it would have long ago politely asked him to stop calling and sought a restraining order. And, as the "Draft Al Gore!" and "Draft Fred Thompson!" and "Draft Wesley Clark!" movements demonstrate, Americans like candidates who feign disinterest in the presidency. The coy suitor, if you will, rather than the guy standing on the White House's front lawn holding the boombox over his head blasting The Star Spangled Banner.

Still, of all the contenders (now that Dodd and Biden have dropped out), I think he'd make the best president. (Well, perhaps not as good as Hillary, but I have ruled her out for other reasons.) He has the experience Obama lacks, and the seriousness that just about everyone on everyone on the Republican side, save perhaps McCain and Paul, openly eschews. By "seriousness," I mean that he has clearly thought about what he would do as president, and not just about how to get to be president. Check out this recent New York Times Interview with Edwards, for instance, or the issues page on his website. I get the sense that Edwards views the presidency as a job, and not just a plum.

Sadly, the media has this completely backwards, dismissing him as the lightweight in the race. And Edwards has largely brought this onto himself, with his relentless smile and a "sunny optimism" shtick that's easily confused with blinkered shallowness. That kind of showmanship may have worked well in the courtroom, but here it has proven a total dud.

Anyway, I think Edwards may have served his purpose in this race: by edging Hillary out in Iowa by a fraction of a percent, he relegated her to "third" and made Obama seem much, much more the frontrunner than if she had come in second. That's of enormous significance to the dynamic of the race, but probably the only thing of consequence Fate has in store for the Edwards campaign. He's not going to be the protagonist of this story, alas, just a plot device.

Books

I'd be happy to see Obama in the White House, though perhaps as a vice president first. Much of my reservations came while reading his book, The Audacity Of Hope, which is mostly written in the "Cowardly Journalist," on-the-one-hand, on-the-other style of using a lot of words to say very little. His dissertation on the filibuster, for instance, is, like:

• The filibuster is a hallowed and important senate tradition
• But it was used to block very important reforms during the civil-rights era
• But I don't think it should be abolished
• But, when Democrats consider using it, they should contemplate the fact that they are subverting the very principle of majority rule
• But then they should use it anyway
• But etc, etc.

By the way, I tried to read Al Gore's most recent book, FATAL REASON ASSAULT IV: THE DUMBENING or whatever it's called, and gave up on page 30, when I hit the line, "It was the new technology itself that empowered Galileo to describe a reality that was impossible to perceive so clearly until the new technology of the telescope made it possible," one of many that was so bad that I could have written them. The guy has an Oscar and a Nobel Prize--you'd think we could rustle himself up an editor as well.

Huckabee

This is the most influence an Internet meme has ever had, at least until Obama names Leslie Hall as Secretary of the Treasury.

Giuliani

I don't know if you saw it, but before the Iowa Caucus Rudy Giuliani released the most fearmongering ad of the campaign.

After coming in fifth there, though, he decided to release this new ad, to really drive home the central theme of his campaign:

NO WAIT STOP DON'T WATCH THE ABOVE VIDEO!!!!

It's ... okay, I'll just tell you. It contains Screaming Zombie Lady. You know, that asinine clip where you watch something relaxing and then all the sudden it becomes a scene of a ghoul shrieking at volume 12 and you shit your pants and have to leave work early to go get a new pair of Dockers? Yeah, it's that one. If you insist on watching it, set the youtube volume to as low as it can go and still be audible. I wanted to spring it on you, but ... I couldn't bring myself to do it. Bah. I'm such a pussy.

It's not often that our President makes me rotfl these days, but occasionally he gets off a good one.

Monday, as you may have heard, a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran was released (PDF), that stated with "high confidence" that Iran halted its quest for nuclear weapons in 2003. You'd think that would leave those who were warning us about World War III as recently as a month ago with egg on their face, but Bush was quick to assure us otherwise. "I believed before the NIE that Iran was dangerous," he said, "and I believe after the NIE that Iran is dangerous."

Ha! Yes, don't you worry your pretty little self, America--this administration will continue to forge ahead on whatever course of action they are currently on, even in the face of facts.

I love they way Bush seems to genuinely believe we are less concerned about whether whether a sworn enemy of the United States has Teh Newk, and more about whether he has ever in his life changed his mind about anything ever forever. Like, if he and and family were out at T.G.I.Friday's and he told Laura he was going to get the Parmesan-Crusted Sicilian Quesadilla, but then when the waiter came he actually ordered a Jack Daniel's Cheesy Bacon Burger, the stock market would crash and two-thirds of the US population would immediately become furries.

So, for those of you seized by anxiety right now, let me reiterate:

Of course, notice how he craftily fails to mention what he believed at the exact moment the NIE was released. He's always got a out, that guy.

Anyway, it amused me that Bush exhaled the carbon dioxide necessary to say that he wasn't going to change his policy. My goodness, M. Night Shyamalan himself couldn't have written a more surprising twist.

So, let's see. What else is political news right now. Ummm .. oh yeah!

***spoilers!!!!!***
***spoilers!!!!!***
***spoilers!!!!!***

This guy is going to be our next president:

Yes, I'm calling it. You heard it here first.

More people are paying attention as we approach the primaries, which is translating into more people with Grave Misgivings about another Clinton term. Obama, meanwhile, is picking up steam.

I say he wins by a significant (if not sizable) margin in Iowa, and people start thinking that he's the one with "electablity." Wins NH by a significant (if not sizable) margin as well, and then it's snowball city.

I'm still banking on Giuliani for the GOP, despite the scandals--after all, he's got FOX in his corner. The contrast between he and Obama is startling in the debates, like the choice between a cupcake and a Brussels sprout. Rudy's scandals continue to dog him up to the general election, and many social conservatives refuse to pull the lever for him (plus, the urgency to do so is gone, since his loss won't result in That Woman winding up in the White House).

Obama takes it in November 2008 ... oh, let's say 292 to 245.

My record of success on these kind of predictions is approximately 0 for Every Prediction I've Ever Made, but that won't stop me from being totally 100% right this time, just you wait.

Back in ye olde early dayes of this blog, I actually had (and occasionally hewed to) a weekly schedule:

Monday:		Books

Tuesday:	Politics

Wednesday:	Humorous observations about yogurt

Thursday:	Games

Friday:		Movies

As for politics, I think I moved from the "laugh so you don't cry" stage to the "cry so you don't move to Finland" stage about two years ago. And, anyway, I've pretty much made every single possible joke about the current administration. Except, perhaps, this one:

Knock knock

Who's there?

George W. Bush

Oh, god. Still?

Yes, for 14 more months

Fuck.

Still, I wrote about a book yesterday, and I'm planning to review a game Thursday, so why not go hog wild and stick to the schedule for old-time's sake. Besides, I've already subjected everyone I know in real life to this harangue, so you're my only remaining audience.

The executive (no pun intended) summary: OH FOR THE LOVE OF CUPCAKES AND KITTENS DO NOT VOTE FOR HILLARY CLINTON IN THE DEMOCRATIC PRIMARIES!

I know I'm not going to change anyones mind on this. But still. Come on. Please?

It's not that I don't like Clinton--I do. Honestly, I think she's the most presidential person in the race, for either party. Some people say she's unelectable, but I don't believe that for a moment. And hopefully Kerry taught us the peril of nominating someone based on their supposed "electability."

But holy smokes, I am so sick of this dynasty crap. Bush? Then Clinton? Then Bush? Then Clinton? If Hillary wins she will likely be re-elected as well; when she leaves office, this nation will have been ruled exclusively by two families for 28 straight years--an entire generation! In 2020, no one under the age of 30 will remember a time when neither a Bush or Clinton was running the joint. And you know Jeb will be waiting in the wings. What's the point of having a democracy if we only use to to elect monarchs?

Some of my friends patiently sit through my tirade and then rebut, "I agree with you in principle, but it's unfair to hold a quirk of history against Clinton." Maybe not, but we ought to elect presidents based not only on their qualities, but also on what is the best for the nation. After all, it's supposed to be a government of laws, not of men (or women). In other words, we need to look beyond the fact that Hillary may be the best-qualified for the presidency, and ask what electing another Clinton or Bush will do to the institution of executive branch. We have the 22nd amendment, and constituencies enact term-limit legislation, to prevent just this sort of situation; we wouldn't even need the 22nd amendment and term-limits if we could just exercise some self-control in cases like this.

So, in conclusion: vote Gravel. Or Obama. Or Richardson, or Edwards, or Dodd--hell, I don't care. But don't vote for Hillary. And just so we're clear: I'm totally not joking about this. There's no way I'll vote for Hillary in the primaries. Not a chance. I'd sooner cast a write-in vote for Ben Dover.

Of course I'll be the first to pull the lever for Clinton if it's Hillary v. Rudy in the general election. Standing on principle is noble, but Giuliani eats power for breakfast and shits crazy in the afternoon.

In his recent speech on Iraq, Bush said "We thank the 36 nations who have troops on the ground in Iraq and the many others who are helping that young democracy."

This assertion--that there are as many as 36 nations aiding in the Iraqi war--has some calling the President delusional. Aside from the US and the United Kingdom, who else is really involved?

Responding to those who question his grip on reality, Bush today enumerated all 36 countires:

• United Kingdom
• Australia
• Ukraine
• Poland (don't forget!)
• Denmark
• South Korea
• Japan
• Czech Republic
• Macedonia
• Bosnia and Herzegovina
• Latveria
• El Salvador
• Slovakia
• Narnia
• Kazakhstan
• Bulgaria
• Romania
• Estonia
• Quendor
• The Shire
• Armenia
• Azerbaijan
• United Federation of Planets
• Cimmeria
• Mongolia
• Sodor
• Singapore
• Dagobah
• Oz
• Mypos
• Brobdingnag
• Albania
• Loompaland
• Where The Wild Things Are
• Lithuania
• Mario World 2-3

Bush added that these allies are also aiding us in our struggle against Eastasia, with whom we have always been at war.

Nebraska became the latest in a series of states "frontloading" the 2008 campaign season, rescheduling their presidential primary from its previous date of Feb. 26, 2008 to 1:30 this afternoon.

Chelsea Clinton did not accompany her mother, as she is currently campaigning in Utah in advance of their 2016 presidential primary, due to be held in April of next year.

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN host: Good evening, and welcome to the first CNN / Youtube democratic presidential debate. We asked people from all over the Internet to submit questions via youtube.com, and the response was overwhelming. So, without further ado, let's jump right in.

Our first question tonight is Zach Kempf in Provo, Utah.

QUESTION: My question is: We have a bunch of leaders who can't seem to do their job. And we pick people based on the issues they that they represent, but then they get in power and they don't do anything about it anyway.

You're going to spend this whole night talking about your views on issues, but the issues don't matter if when you get in power nothing's going to get done.

We have a Congress and a president with, like, a 30 percent approval rating, so clearly we don't think they're doing a good job. What's going to make you any more effectual, beyond all the platitudes and the stuff we're used to hearing? I mean, be honest with us. How are you going to be any different?

SEN. CHRISTOPHER DODD: omg that video was totaly gay

SEN. BARACK OBAMA: Shut up Dodd thats offensive when u say gay like that.

FORMER SEN. MIKE GRAVEL: Check out my vids at youtube.com/user/gravel2008.

REP. DENNIS KUCINICH: to answre your question bush is a facist who only wants more power. hes not even the president you knopw, cheny is. i would b different because i would have a vice presidant that doesnt just try and control everything from behind the seens/

SEN. HILLARY CLINTON: CHENEY CANT BE PRESIDENT BECUZ THE CONSTITUTION SAYS THE VICE PRESIDENT IS NOT THE PRESIDENT WHY DON'T U TRY READING THE CONSTITUTION SOMETIME??????!!!!

KUCINICH: i have read thwe consititution which is probably more than youve ever read except maybe the back of a ceral box.

CLINTON: AT LEAST I EAT CEREAL AND NOT GRANOLA HIPPY!!!!!!!

SEN. JOE BIDEN: Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate with any integrity in this race. He's a TRUE PATRIOT, not a republicrat sellout like the rest of us.

COOPER: Let's move on to the next question.

QUESTION: Hey, I'm Mike Green from Lexington, South Carolina. And I was wanting to ask all the nominees whether they would send their kids to public school or private school.

GRAVEL: Check out my vids at youtube.com/user/gravel2008.

FORMER SEN. JOHN EDWARDS: When I'm president I will abolish school hehehe.

GOV. BILL RICHARDSON: Private school, because if you have ever heard the Pink Floyd song "Another Brick In The Wall" you know that public schools are not very good.

CLINTON: THAT SONG IS ABOUT ENGLAND SCOOLS U MORON NOT US SCHOOLS AND PINK FLOYD SUCKS!!!!!!

RICHARDSON: Oh, I'm sure YOU like really good music. Like Pussycat Dolls or some other mass-marketed corporate crap you buy at Wal*Mart.

CLINTON: U ARE JUST SAYING PUSSYCAT DOLS BECAUSE I AM GIRL AND THATS MISSOGENISTIC!!!!!

COOPER: May I interject something here? That hour-long interview I had with Paris Hilton last month? The guys at CNN made me do that. Just so you know. I would have preferred to do a story on AIDS or drought or something, because I'm a respected journalist.

{Pause}

DODD: omg u r totaly gay

OBAMA: rotfl its so true

For the last few days, friends have been asking me what I think of the Libby pardon, and then sort of stepping back, wary but with looks amused anticipation on their faces, waiting for me to erupt in incensed indignation.

And they are invariably disappointed when I instead shrug and say, "I don't see how Libby going to jail matters, one way or the other."

Look people, here's the deal. Libby is (or, rather, was) nothing more than one tentacle of the Cephalopod we know and loathe as Dick Cheney. Everything the guy did--from leaking Plame's name to furiously trying to cover it up--was done either at the behest or to cover the ass of his Dark Master. To get all flushed and giddy of the prospect of Libby going to the pokey, while Cheney not only remains free but continue to pretty much run this joint, strikes me as the equivalent of throwing a single Sprite can into your recycling bin and declaring victory over global warming.

On the other hand, Bush's pardon of Libby has a bunch of positive side-effects:

It further illustrates the stunning contempt this administration has for the rule of law. For those of us who have been paying attention, providing more evidence that this administration essentially considers itself unfettered by the checks and balances of the legislative and judicial branches is like carrying coals to Newcastle. But Libby's pardon neatly encapsulates their monarchical arrogance into a single, easy-to-understand event, concise enough for a headline or a CNN crawler. No more trying to explain the intricacies of the US Attorney scandal and how it subtlety demonstrates the White House's disregard for accountability; now you just say "Libby's pardon" and people know exactly what you are talking about.

It negates the "Clinton factor." Apologists for the White House love to talk about Bill Clinton, and how much worse he was than the current occupant of the oval office. Or, at least, they used to--before Bush managed to equal and surpass pretty much every wrongheaded decision and politically-motivated maneuver Slick Willy ever attempted in his eight years of office. Pretty much the only thing Clintonphobes could still cite as unambiguously worse about the previous administration was the use of pardons, thanks to Marc Rich's Get Out Of Jail Free card. Now they don't even have that anymore. (And, fun fact: after the Rich pardon, Clinton wrote an op-ed for the New York Times attempting to justify his decision; Bush, on the other hand, couldn't even be bother do to his own clean-up, instead letting Tony Snow do the 'splainin'. An op-ed, by the way, in which Snow mentions Clinton's name as many times as he does that of his boss.)

It keeps the Plame scandal alive: You put a scapegoat in jail, and that's pretty much the end of the story. Once Ken Lay was convicted, talk of his connections to the White House largely stopped. That's a little thing called "closure," and something--thanks to Bush's decision--we do not yet have on the Plame Affair.

It draws attention to the absurdity of mandatory minimum sentencing requirements: People are outraged about the Libby pardon because Bush presumed to substitute his own judgment for that of the judge and jury. But the federal government does this all the time, with mandatory minimum sentencing laws. As recently as last month, Bush was "pushing legislation that would require prison time for nearly all criminals," ("Nearly" because perjurers and personal buddies will still get a pass, I assume.) If Bush's "judgment" in the Libby case rankles, ask yourself: if this really the guy you want setting sentencing requirements for all 50 states?

It strengthens the case for impeachment I have not yet boarded the I-Train--I don't want to live in a nation where, every time we have a divided government, the legislative branch spends all of its time and energy trying to eviscerate the executive, which is what I fear will happens if the President is impeached two administrations in a row. But my reservations only extend to Bush. The trail of slime in the Libby case leads back to Cheney, and I'm all for getting that guy gone.

If our government is like a house, Bush would be inside trashing the joint: breaking lamps, pulling over bookshelves (easy enough, given the amount of books he likely keeps on them), yanking up the carpet, and so on. He'll leave a mess, but the next inhabitant will be able to clean it up eventually. The stuff Cheney and Rove have done, though--be it the avocation of torture, the obsession with secrecy, or the stacking the judicial branch--is more akin to a toxic black mold, that sort that infests a house for generations, rendering the place unlivable.

I think Bush is pretty much done for, and impeaching him would serve little purpose; but Cheney is like a guy who has had "a few beers" and is roaming the countryside with a shotgun (if you can envision that farfetched scenario): the sooner he is disarmed, the better we'll be. Or, as Hendrik Hertzberg put it in The New Yorker, Cheney is:

the most influential public official in the country, not necessarily excluding President Bush, and his influence has been entirely malign. He is pathologically (but purposefully) secretive; treacherous toward colleagues; coldly manipulative of the callow, lazy, and ignorant President he serves; contemptuous of public opinion; and dismissive not only of international law (a fairly standard attitude for conservatives of his stripe) but also of the very idea that the Constitution and laws of the United States, including laws signed by his nominal superior, can be construed to limit the power of the executive to take any action that can plausibly be classified as part of an endless, endlessly expandable "war on terror."

Please stop saying that the Democrats in Congress "had to" drop timetables from the Iraq funding bill.

They did not "have to." They chose to, because they are cowards. Please make a note of it.

Ron Paul, one of the second-tier Republican candidates who participated in last night's debate, is a Libertarian and a strict Constitutionalist. In practice, that means he's pro-life (but thinks the Federal government shouldn't rule on abortion one way or the other), opposed to capital punishment, advocate for a non-interventionist foreign policy, "regularly votes against almost all proposals for government spending," thinks we should scrap the drug war, supports the repeal of the Income Tax, and was given an A+ by the Gun Owners of America.

Holy smokes. Pair this guy up with Mike Gravel and you've got yourself a ticket.

Alberto Gonzales testifies before Congress tomorrow. Oh my goodness, I'm giddy as a schoolgirl. That crescendo of rumbling you hear is a train wreck a-comin'.

If you'd like to get up to speed before the spectacle, I would refer you to my The Purgegate Primer.

The latest twist in the tale, revealed after I wrote my cheatsheet, is that the Justice Department has been stacked with graduates from the "tier-four" (i.e., "pisspoor") legal school founded by religious-right zealot Pat Robertson. Read all about it here, or have it explained to you by Bill Maher there (video). Expect Gonzales to field a few questions about that.

Also, a group of longtime conservatives called for his resignation earlier today. (That is, they made their request earlier today--they are not requesting that he travel back in time and resign four hours ago.)

Spider-Man 3 will hafta be pretty goddamned good to beat this.

Damn it--I'm still writing "Fourth Year of the Iraq War" on my checks.

Yay team!

Style: Single, square panel containing a black-and-white sketch.

Scene: We look down on a chess board, at about a 45° from horizontal.

A lone white king stands at the far end of the board. Arrayed around him are assorted black pieces. He is in checkmate; there are no other white pieces anywhere near him.

A hand, clutching a number of pawns, is held over the near end of the board. The hand is opening, and pawns spill out. Some are in midair as they tumble downward, others lie on their sides in the foreground. A few have even rolled off the board.

Caption: "The Surge"

Yes! Totally called it!

Bush has moved his decision on the Iraq war to January, saying that he needs to digest all the information he has received on the subject.

Yes, this is the typical Bush M.O.: Ingest a bunch of reasonable suggestions from thoughtful and knowledgeable advisers, hunker down with Cheney and the rest of the inner circle for a week or two, and return with the end product of the digestion process.

The Washington Post:

Saudi Arabia is so concerned about the damage that the conflict in Iraq is doing across the region that it basically summoned Vice President Cheney for talks over the weekend...

On every birthday between the ages of four and 15, some adult would ask me "So, do you feel any older?" It was meant to be a joke I'm sure, but in some ways it was kind of depressing.

Hitting the next age was a big deal to me as a kid, as I always thought that the next annual increment would bring with it all sorts of long sought-after boons: more freedom, later bedtime, permission to watch more risque TV shows, etc. I would pine for my birthday for months, in the hope that, when the day finally arrived, everything would suddenly improve. At last the sacred date would arrive. And then along came these grown-ups to remind me that, really, nothing much had changed.

The Democrats have just taken both chambers of Congress. Feel any older?

And welcome to Election 2006.

In The Morning News today we have the winners of the Encyclopedia Brown for District Attorney contest.

In McSweeney's, please to be finding my 2006 Voters Guide.

And although this is the part of the post where I am supposed to urge you to "get out and vote!" Washington State elections now rely almost exclusively on absentee ballots these days. So, you know: fondly reminisce about that time you voted, like, three days ago.

Dare to dream

In The News:

Encouraging audience participation from thousands of Republican loyalists at a rally, Bush said Democrats should be asked, "What's your plan?" for winning in Iraq and a host of other national security issues separating the parties.

"What's your plan?" the audience yelled back.

I'm the eternal optimist -- even in the realm of contemporary politics, where optimism is as out of place as an oyster on an ice cream sundae. So while my friends agonize over which political party will have control of Congress come January, I like to point out that, regardless of which way things turn out, this election will almost certainly result in a number of positive trends:

• Gridlock: I'm one of those people who prefers the executive and the legislative branch to be held by opposing parties -- a philosophy has been thoroughly vindicated in the last four years, dont'cha think? And while Democrats may not take the Senate, one thing is clear: Bush will no longer have a rubber stamp at his disposal, drawing this chapter of Ideologues Gone Wild! to a close. I know many would like the Democrats to spend the next few years investigating and impeaching members of the Bush administration, but that's the wrong way to go: the solution to polarization is not further divisiveness. And, anyway, I think the Dems would get clobbered in 2008 if they went this route. Worse, Bush would view prosecution as persecution, and settle comfortably into his role as a martyr. Better to simply frustrate his agenda for the next few years and let him serve our his term an impotent lame duck. I mean, look how cranky he became when he couldn't gut Social Security -- seeing his frowny, petulant face on the news every evening filled my heart with joy.
• The Democratic Party Will Have To Cough Up An Agenda: The only reason the Dems are poised to make gains this go-round is because the Republicans are imploding. But the electorate, having Thrown Out the Bums this year, will cheerfully elect shiny new Republicans in 2008 and 2010 unless the Democrats offer some sort of compelling vision. Best of all, without Bush to run against in the next presidential election, Democratic candidates will have to do more than just walking around in a t-shirt reading "I'm Running Against Stupid."
• Republicans Will Again Welcome Actual Conservatives: The biggest fallout from this campaign for the GOP isn't the loss of congressional seats or governorships, but that the whole "Republicans are the party of conservatives" has been exposed as the fraud it's long become. Democrats have adopted the rhetoric (and, let's hope, the mantle) of fiscal responsibility, and unless Repubs want to become known as the party of "big government," they're going to have to fend off this encroachment on what had been one of their signature issues. In a perfect world both parties would compete to outdo each other in economic rectitude and we'd have this whole deficit squared away by the time the last Harry Potter book is released.
• Third Party Candidates: I'm not a fan of Lieberman (I can't look at him and not remember his crowing about being "in a three-way-tie for third place," possibly the most pathetic declaration in a presidential election rife with wince-worthy moments), but I'm all for more people running as Independents.
• The Course, It Is A Changin': The White House has chosen an eleventh-hour "Change The Rhetoric, Stay The Course" gambit in regards to the war, but I have no doubt our Iraq policy will finally be changing. For one thing, James Baker's report is going to drop like a hammer; for another, Bush is going to have a hard time backing away from his promise of "benchmarks." Plus, see point one: Gridlock is a a cynical word for "Oversight." I don't pretend to know what we should be do in Iraq from this point forward, but I know that "same old same old" ain't doin' the trick.

"I like to tell people when the final history is written on Iraq, [the current violence] will look like just a comma."

"Our commitment to a free Iraq must end with an exclamation point, not an ellipsis."

"The overthrow of Saddam was an apostrophe, indicating possession of Iraq by its long-oppressed people."

"The only way to stop the sectarian violence is to find a bridge between the Sunnis and Shiites, a hyphen that will join the two separate party into one compound nation."

"We have enclosed the insurgents in parentheses, marking them as little more than an interruption to the rise of democracy that can be ignored without changing the overall meaning of the region's struggle for liberty."

"Though Saddam and Al Quada had no direct links, their relationship was that of a semi-colon, joining related but distinct proponents of terror."

"Setting a timetable for withdrawal would be like starting a Spanish sentence with an inverted question mark, a signal that all that follows is uncertain and conditional."

"When I sent my Secretary of State to the UN to make the case for war, I jokingly referred to him as Colon Powell, as he served to introduce an itemized list of our grievances against the Iraqi dictator."

"Victory is still possible in Iraq -- albeit a victory enclosed in scare quotes and followed by an asterisk."

Yesterday, as the Foley Instant Message scandal continued to snowball, National Republican Congressional Committee chairman Tom Reynolds held a press conference, in which he surrounded himself with youngsters. You truly have to see this masterful political maneuver to appreciate it:

Yes, that's right: a press conference on a topic that the press is unable to ask about because of the conditions of the press conference.

Today, as more details were leaked about Foley's shenanigans, the Republican National Committee took the unusual step of ordering all GOP Congressmen to wear safety vests until the upcoming election.

Chris Matthews: Our guest today on Hardball is Bruce Sierra, one of the many Republican fighting an uphill battle for re-election this November. Senator Sierra, thank you for joining us.

Sierra: Thanks for having us, Chris.

Matthews: The revelation that Mark Foley sent a series of salacious instant messages to a page --

Sierra: Chris, please. Do you really think it's appropriate to be discussing this in front of my young constituent, here?

Matthew: Well, I, I guess -- Okay then, let me ask you this. How can you, or any member of Congress, justify the staggering public debt that our nation has amassed over the last six years?

Sierra: Oh, come on. You and I know both know who's going have to shoulder that debt: the next generation of Americans,. Infants like this one here. Do we really have to expose him to this ugly reality now? Can't we give him just a little time -- time to be a carefree child?

Matthews: All right. The situation in Iraq --

Sierra: Shhh. Oh, shhhhhh! I think my little supporter is drifting off to sleep ...

GOP legislators have also been told to remain inebriated from now until November 7th, so they can be whisked off to rehab when their indiscretions come to light.

In case you missed the President's speech this evening, here is a summary:

"September 11, 2001."

{Pause}

"Well, enough about that. Let's talk about my failed foreign policy."

I was among the rabid right-wing bloggers fortunate enough to receive an advance copy of the ABC / Disney miniseries The Path To 9/11. While I applauded the filmmakers for bringing to light some hard truths regarding the attacks (where "hard" is defined as "un-"), I feel obligated to point out a few minor errors and inconsistencies:

• The Starr Report alleged that President Bill Clinton engaged in oral sex with Monica Lewinsky, not Zacarias Moussaoui (though it's easy to see how the two names could get mixed up).
• Evidence that the Taliban was founded by Tipper Gore is circumstantial at best.
• There is no record of Madeleine Albright describing the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole as "more of a prank, really" and dismissing it as "no big deal."
• Michael Moore spent most of 2001 working on his film Bowling For Columbine, so it's unlikely he could have found time to give the 9/11 hijackers flying lessons.
• The scene in which Howard Dean punches Jesus is a dramatization.
• The cockpit recordings from United Airlines Flight 175 have never been released, so there's no verification that that the last voice heard is a terrorist saying "this message brought to you by moveon.org."
• Blooper! When the Clintons are in bed and Bill is reading to Hillary "to get her in the mood" he is holding Mein Kampf upside-down.
• The 9/11 Commission did not conclude that citizens could guard against future attacks by purchasing Lilo & Stitch DVDs.
• Sandy Berger and Osama bin Laden were not the co-stars of the 1983 hit comedy "Bosom Buddies," so it's unclear how they could have "forged a strong and lifelong friendship" while serving as such.
• The finale, in which Bush crashes Airforce One into a remote Afghan stronghold, emerges unscathed from the wreckage, and defeats Al Qaeda using nunchucks and pyrokinesis, is actually a composite of several different events.

Speaking of Phillip K. Dick ...

When it was released in 2002, Minority Report was interpreted by some as an indictment of George Bush's doctrine of preemption, which allowed the US to detain persons and attack nations on mere suspicions.

In anticipation of the film, I bought The Minority Report and Other Classic Stories, and was surprised to find that the titular story was not alone in predicting the foibles of the Bush administration. In fact, the story immediately preceding The Minority Report was so eerily reminiscent that I kept waiting for Cheney to stroll into the scene.

The Mold of Yancy, despite the title, has nothing to do with fungi. Terran agent Taverner is dispatched to Callisto to investigate the political situation when computer analysis shows the Callistian society inching toward totalitarianism. Upon arrival, Taverner initially believes that the political assessment is incorrect, as he can find no overt signs of repression. Then he learns of John Edward Yancy.

Every evening Yancy takes to the airwaves, treating the Callistotes to charming little homilies and sage advice in his short, televised spots. "A kind of home-spun philosopher," one person describes him. "Totally ordinary man ... A sort of talking almanac. Pithy sayings on every topic. Wise old saws: how to cure a chest cold. What the trouble is back on Terra." Though supposedly unaffiliated with the government or the church, Yancy is admired by most inhabitants of the moon with an ardor that borders on reverence.

Taverner does a little poking around, and, upon reviewing the tapes of Yancy's broadcasts, discovers something interesting: despite all his talking, Yancy almost never says anything:

Yancy had definite opinions on everything ... or mere they so definite? A strange suspicion was growing in [Taverner]. On some topics, yes. On minor issues, Yancy had exact rules, specific maxims drawn from mankind's rich storehouse of folklore. But major philosophical and political issues were something else again.

Getting out one of the many tapes listed under War, Taverner ran it through at random.

"... I'm against war," Yancy pronounced angrily ... "[But] I feel a planet must be strong. We must not surrender ourselves meekly ... weakness invites attack and fosters aggression. By being weak we promote war. We must gird ourselves and protect those we love. With all my heart and soul I'm against useless wars; but I say again, as I've said many times before, a man must come forward and fight a just war. He must not shrink from his responsibility. War is a terrible thing. But sometimes we must... "

As he restored the tape, Taverner wondered just what the hell Yancy had said. What were his views on war? They took up a hundred separate reels of tape; Yancy was always ready to hold forth on such vital and grandiose subjects as War, the Planet, God, Taxation. But did he say anything?

A cold chill crawled up Taverner's spine. On specific -and trivial - items there were absolute opinions: dogs are better than cats, grapefruit is too sour without a dash of sugar, it's good to get up early in the morning, too much drinking is bad. But on big topics ... an empty vacuum, filled with the vacant roll of high-sounding phrases. A public that agreed with Yancy on war and taxes and God and planet agreed with absolutely nothing. And with everything.

"By authorities, you mean the governing council?"

Sipling laughed sharply. "I mean the trading syndicates that own this moon: lock, stock, and barrel."

Um!

Here's a quotation from another Yancy speech:

"I realize how lucky we are to be alive, and to have ... the fine cities and houses, all the things God has given us to enjoy. But we've got to be careful. We've got to make sure we don't lose these things. There are forces that could weaken us. Everything we've built up for our loved ones, for our children, could be taken away from us overnight. We must learn to be vigilant. We must protect our liberties, our possessions, our way of life. If we become divided, and fall to bickering among each other, we will be easy prey for our enemies."

Well, no, that quotation really did come from The Mold of Yancy. But come on: you thought that was Bush for a second, there, didn't you?

"I've come to see the essential key to the Yancy character," says Sipling near the end of the story.

"The key to the new type of person we're growing, here. It's simple. It's the element that makes that person malleable enough to be led around. All Yancy's beliefs are insipid. The key is thinness. Every part of his ideology is diluted: nothing excessive. We've come as close as possible to no beliefs . . . you've noticed that. Wherever possible we've cancelled attitudes out, left the person apolitical. Without a viewpoint."

"Sure," Taverner agreed. "But with the illusion of a viewpoint."

"All aspects of personality have to be controlled; we want the total person. So a specific attitude has to exist for each concrete question. In every respect, our rule is: Yancy believes the least troublesome possibility. The most shallow. The most simple, effortless view, the view that fails to go deep enough to stir any real thought."

In related news, Bush was seen reading Albert Camus' The Stranger a few weeks ago, and recently spoke of the Iraq war as "straining the psyche of our country." Maybe we've got a Sipling in the White House, at long last.

You can read The Mold of Yancy here.

The Queen: I think Bush is in town for a few days.

Me: He was just here this morning. He left a few hours ago.

The Queen: Ah. I wondered why the sun came back out.

People often complain that they don't know what Democrats stand for. Thankfully, there is no such ambiguity regarding the Republicans. Today they again reminded the nation of the bedrock principle that their party was found upon: giving voters $100 each in an election year.

They are calling the swag "gas rebate checks," because it's supposedly to reimburse citizens for the high gasoline prices they have been subjected to over the last year. Never mind that subsidizing the purchase of gasoline will increase demand and lead to yet higher gas prices.

But there's no obligation for the recipients of these checks to actually spend the cash on fuel. In fact, as near as I can tell there is no connection whatsoever between the money and gasoline prices -- I presume that bicyclists will be getting the same amount as truckers -- except that the checks will probably have the words "Republican sponsored gas rebate" in the "memo" field.

Frankly, I think Congress is missing an opportunity for a more targeted approach. What they should do is ask each American what he or she is most unhappy about, and then label the checks accordingly. There could be "gas rebate" checks and "cable rebate" checks and "dadgum Mexicans taking our jobs" checks and "dudes kissing dudes" checks. That way, Americans will know that Republicans care exactly $100 worth about whichever issue concerns them the most.

The whole thing would seem kind of silly if the government were just giving us back the money we paid in taxes; it would like a bank touting their generosity every time you withdrew your own money. How fortunate, then, that the United States has long since exhausted its cash on hand. Now the cost of funding the program will get tacked onto our already obscene national debt, and it will be the poor saps down the chronological line that will get stuck with the bill. In other words, it's 100% completely free money!!

In fact, they should just call this the "Five Dollar Bill in the Birthday Card Preimbursement Program." Here's how it works. First, we give you $100 now. Then, after your grandchild is born, you include $5 in every card you send them on their birthday -- iIf you stop sending them cards before they turn twenty, you get to keep all the extra money! Then your grandchild joins the workforce, gets burdened with astronomical taxes, and struggles to pay down the gargantuan debt we saddled him with. It's like your adult grandchild is sending $100 back in time to you, who is then sending it forward in time to your adult grandchild's younger self. How totally awesome is that? It's pretty much exactly like The Terminator!

All in all I think the "giving voters $100 each in an election year" program this is the greatest things to come out of Washington since prohibition. It's so clever that I can't help but wonder where Republicans got the idea. Lord knows no one has ever given a Republican a bunch of "no strings attached" money in the hopes of influencing their vote.

I haven't written about politics much recently. Of course I haven't written much about yams recently either, another thing that typically makes me want to throw up. Go figure.

Let's see, what's going on? Today Bush met with Jason McElwaine, the austic kid who scored 20 points in four minutes for his basketball team.

"I saw the video and just had to meet this kid," said the President. "In front of all these cameras," he added. "Because Rove made me."

Later, he explained motivation for his visit. "As I am clearly unable to inspire this nation, I though I'd come stand next to someone who could."

Also today, Pew Research released the results of a poll in which they asked people to use a single word to describe Bush.

We need to pull Casey Kasem out of retirement so he can count these down "America's Top 40" style. "And now a newcomer to the countdown, but a rising star. It's number 10: ass."

It's weird that "sucks" only appears in February of 2005, and "ass" now shows up outta nowhere. Maybe seven people wanted to says "sucks ass" last year but, when they found out they were limited to a single word, they decided to parcel their reply out in annual installments.

And I love that six people describe the President as "President." What, did they conduct this poll at a National Association of Literialists convention or something? Man, I hope they include me in the 2007 poll so I can say "bipedal."

Democrats, meanwhile, continued to demonstrate their unwavering commitment to vacillation by reacting to Sen. Feingold's proposal to formally censure Bush the same way my cats react to a vacuum cleaner.

Feingold's censure motion appears to be mostly grandstanding, granted, but at least someone in the opposition party has decided to give opposing a whirl. Or perhaps it's all a clever ploy on Feingold's part. The Republicans responded to his proposal by issuing a set of talking points headlined The Debate Is Over: Dems Find Their Agenda. And Democrats were all, like, LOL WE TOTALLY TRICKED YOU -- WE HAVE NO AGENDA!!

Actually, that's unfair. The Democrats clearly do have an agenda: don't say or do anything that could be construed as controversial by anyone anywhere. Who says they aren't the party of religion? Quite the contrary, they seem to have adopted Jesus's prediction that "the meek shall inherit the earth" as their official 2006 midterm election strategy.

"I don't know the key to success," Bill Cosby once said, "but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." It's pretty sad when a political party needs to take tips from Fat Albert, but there you go.

In a telling indicator of how we view the Vice President, every media outlet apparently feels the need to put the qualifier "accidentally" between the words "Cheney" and "Shoots" in their headlines, e.g., "Cheney Accidentally Shoots Fellow Hunter," "Cheney accidentally shoots Austin man while hunting," etc..

If you read "Bush Stabs Fellow Napper," you'd chuckle knowingly and say "oh, that loveable bumbler -- what will he do next?" But with Cheney they actually have to waste valuable headline space to clarify that, in this particular instance, shooting a septuagenarian in the face was not part of his Master Plan.

Of course now that the media has used "accidentally" in this case, they'll be forced to clarify yet again when the Vice President intentionally attacks someone. CHENEY GARROTES ZOOKEEPER TOTALLY ON PURPOSE

This evening The Queen and I watched the State of the Union address, the Democratic response, and then an episode of The Sopranos. It was kind of like a trilogy.

Iraqi Invasion: A Text Misadventure
Revision 88 / Serial number 54892

> QUIT
Oh, how we wish you would.

Reuter's headline: Bush Pitches Iraq Strategy

Hmm. I wonder which definition of "pitch" they are using.

A. To erect and fix firmly in place;

B. To present or advertise for sale, especially in a high-pressure way;

C. To utter glibly and insincerely;

D. To put aside or discard.

If I could draw today's post would have been a polticial cartoon featuring Special Procecutor Patrick Fitzgerald dressed as the Prince of All Cosmos, and pushing a katamari which had stuck to it, along with assorted detritus, Karl Rove, Scotter Libby, Judith Miller, and Dick Cheney. And directly in the path of the katamari would be a small and panicky-looking Bush, with the White House right behind him.

Yes sir. If I could draw, that would have been great.

You'd think that with all the calamities that have recently befallen the White House -- the fallout from the Katrina response, the Plame investigation, the Miers nomination, the Delay indictment, the disastrous Tikrit teleconference, etc. -- we progressives would be gloating every chance we got. Actually, I've noticed that most of my friends daren't even mention the current state of the executive branch, as if they were afraid of jinxing things. It's like we're seven innings into a no-hitter, but no one wants to mention this fact aloud.

Or it could just be that we here in Seattle are so familiar with this particular brand of meltdown that it hardly bears mentioning any more. Because the trajectory of the Bush Administration almost perfectly parallel any given season of our beloved (and occationally behated) hometome baseball team, the Seattle Mariners.

Things start out promising and soon they are flying high, packing the stadium every night and well over five hundred. But then, just after the mid-season All-Star game (which, in thins case, would coincide with the 2004 election), things start to go south. Soon they go into a full-on tailspin: they can't do anything right, they routinely snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, the fair-weather fans desert them, and even the season-ticket holders start grousing about the lousy management.

On the bright side, the Bush administration will probably trade John Bolton to Paraguay for a young but promising diplomat and a yes-man to be named later, and begin scheduling events like a "Press Secretary Night" where the first 10,000 visitors to the White House receive a commemorative "Scotty's A Hotty" jersey and get to attend a special ceremony where they retire Ari Fleischer's number.

A primer for the Karl Rove / Valerie Plame scandal.

The Introduction You Can Feel Free To Skip

This is not a political blog, and I imagine that a large percentage of my readers don't read political blogs on a regular basis. If you do, this probably doesn't contain any information you don't already know (assuming you are up-to-date with the latest bombshell.)

For the rest of you, I want to give you a primer on the whole Karl Rove / Valerie Plame thing you may have been hearing about. Not because I happen to think it's a huge story, but because it's slowly turning into a real, juicy political scandal of the sort you'd expect to find in a David Baldacci novel, complete with surprise twists, double-crosses, and an honest-to-goodness spy.

It's been very entertaining to watch the whole thing unfold, because information has been coming out in dribs and drabs, like a fireworks show with big pauses in it. Every once in a while there's a big, flashy explosion followed by a lengthy silence, and just as you say "well, I guess it's over" and start to get out of of your lawn chair: poom! here comes the next round. And it looks as though things are going to get more interesting yet.

But the downside to the "dribs and drabs" aspect of this drama is that it has been going on for nearly three years, and most of the recent articles assume you know the whole backstory. You can get an exhaustive account of the story over at Wikipedia: Valerie Plame. This is intended to be a brief primer for those who are only now joining the fun, and just want the Cliff's Notes for the imbroglio.

First, though, let's get this out of the way. Disclaimer: I do not like the Bush administration, and I don't like Karl Rove. So I'm feeling no small amount of schadenfreude as I watch all this come down the pike. There's my bias, right up front. That said, I will try to stick to the facts, except where I specifically cite something as speculation. If you feel like I have a fact wrong, drop me a line or let me know in the comments.

Ready?

The Back Story

In early 2002 the CIA was trying to verify a report that Niger had sold uranium-enriched yellowcake to Iraq in the late 1990s. They asked former ambassador Joseph Wilson to travel to Niger and check out the story. He did so in February of 2002, and, upon returning a month later, told the CIA that the story was likely bogus.

The matter was presumed settled until September 2002, when a "white paper" used by the British Government stated the yellowcake story as fact. Then, in the State of the Union speech of January, 2003, Bush referenced this document, saying, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." As yellowcake can be used to create WMDs, this claim was central to Bush's case for war.

The invasion of Iraq began on March 20, 2003.

Wilson publicly denounced the "uranium from Africa" line in the months following the State of the Union speech. On July 6, 2003, The New York Times carried an article by Wilson called "What I Didn't Find In Africa"; of the yellowcake rumor, he wrote "It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place."

On July 14, 2003, columnist Robert Novak wrote about the Bush / Wilson, he-said / he-said dispute in the article "Mission To Niger" "Wilson never worked for the CIA," wrote Novak, "but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger."

The Scandal

Two days after Novak's column appeared, David Corn of The Nation led an article entitled "A White House Smear" with the lines

Did senior Bush officials blow the cover of a US intelligence officer working covertly in a field of vital importance to national security -- and break the law -- in order to strike at a Bush administration critic and intimidate others? It sure looks that way, if conservative journalist Bob Novak can be trusted.

Wilson alleged that the White House had outed his wife as retribution for his whistleblowing. Others speculate that the purpose of the leak was to discredit Wilson by implying that his trip was just a gig his wife managed to get him. Whatever the reason, Wilson thought he knew the source: during a roundtable discussion in August of 2003, Wilson said, of the leak, "At the end of the day, it's of keen interest to me to see whether or not we can get Karl Rove frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs. And trust me, when I use that name, I measure my words."

In the wake of this comment, speculation grew that Rove, George Bush's senior political adviser, was behind the leak. When asked about the possibility, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said "I haven't heard that. That's just totally ridiculous." A few days later McClellan went even farther when asked if Bush had personally asked Rove if he was behind the leak. "[Rove] wasn't involved," McClellan said. "The President knows he wasn't involved."

The Investigation

At the end of September 2003 the Justice Department announced a full-scale investigation into the leak.

And then nothing seemed to happen for months: no findings were announced, and it was unclear how the investigation was progressing, or if it was progressing at all. Some felt that, with Ashcroft both Attorney General and friend to Bush, he would simply put the kibosh on the whole thing. For folks like myself, who had been following the story with interest, this seemed like the end of the line. My guess was that they would stall for a few months or years and then quietly announce, at 4:35 on a Friday afternoon, that they had been unable find the culprit. And that would be that.

But then a couple of surprising things happened.

First, Ashcroft recused himself from the case in December 2003. When US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald replaced Ashcroft on the investigation, one of his first acts was to subpoena the phone records of Air Force One. Suddenly the story was back in the news, albeit on page A13.

When asked about the case in February, 2004, Bush said "If there's a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is ... if the person has violated law, that person will be taken care of."

Fitzgerald continued to work on the investigation throughout 2004. Bush was interviewed in June; various reporters were hauled in front of the grand jury over the course of the year and either testified or held their tongues.

In an August 2004 CNN interview, Rove said of Plame "I didn't know her name and didn't leak her name." Note the wording.

Rove himself testified before the jury in October. Then came the election of 2004, and the story (again) appeared to have ended with a whimper.

Reveal Your Sources

Robert Novak was not the only person to have had Valerie Plame's name whispered into his ear -- he was just the first to put it into print. In fact, a number of journalists were told of Plame's identity in early July of 2003. For instance, a piece for TIME Magazine called "A War on Wilson?" published on July 17, 2003 (three days after Novak's column) said "some government officials have noted to TIME in interviews ... that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, is a CIA official who monitors the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction." The lead writer on that story was a reporter by the name of Matthew Cooper.

Cooper refused to reveal his source to the grand jury investigating the Plame leak, in defiance of a subpena from Fitzgerald. For this he was sentenced to 18 months in prison. In an effort to save him (presumably), TIME Magazine -- saying that it was not bound by its reporters' confidentially agreements -- turned over Cooper's notes to Fitzgerald, thereby revealing his source. Fitzgerald, however, insisted that Cooper personally testify or go to jail. Cooper again refused and prepared for the pokey.

Then on July 10 of this year, days before he was to go to prison, Cooper suddenly reversed himself and said that he would testify after all. "A short time ago, in somewhat dramatic fashion, I received an express personal release from my source," Cooper said of his abrupt change of heart.

Cooper (and Cooper's notes) identified the source of the leak as Karl Rove.

Today

Two big developments today.

Those of us rooting for Rove's downfall were a little discouraged when we heard that Cooper had received "express personal release from my source" to testify. After all, if Rove said "go ahead," he must not have considered himself to be in too much trouble. Today, however, we learned that Cooper's "release from my source" did not, in fact, come from his source at all.

Rove long ago signed a blanket waiver, given to him by Fitzgerald, saying that reporters were free to discuss any conversations they had with him about the Plame leak. Cooper, however, concluded that Rove was coerced into signing this waiver (after all, in refusing to do so he would have outed himself as the leaker) and his oath of confidentiality was still in force. So what changed? Well, apparently The Wall Street Journal spoke with Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, last week. Here's an excerpt from the resultant article:

Mr. Rove's attorney, Robert Luskin, last week denied that Mr. Rove had contacted Mr. Cooper last Wednesday, and said that when Mr. Rove spoke to Mr. Cooper two years ago, "Karl didn't disclose Valerie Plame's identification to anyone. That's not a technical statement. That's as practical and direct as I can make it." He also told The Wall Street Journal that Mr. Rove had never asked any reporter to treat him as a confidential source in the matter, "so if Matt Cooper is going to jail to protect a source, it's not Karl he's protecting."

Cooper apparently decided that if Luskin's statement were true, then the inverse was also true: "if it is Karl Rove I'm protecting then I guess I don't have to go to jail, and can safely blab." Or perhaps Cooper was pissed that Luskin had flat-out lied. Or perhaps Cooper just really, really didn't want to go to jail and chickened out. Who knows?

The other big development today is that the White House has completely clammed up about the issue. Check out this video of Scott McClellan using 340 words to say "no comment" over and over again.

Crime and Punishment

So what's the upshot to all this? Is Rove going to be "frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs?"

In a word, no. Or, if he is, it probably won't be for outing Valerie Plame. Fitzgerald would have to show that Rove knew she was a covert agent when he told Cooper she worked for the CIA, and that might be tricky.

If Fitzgerald nails Rove for anything, it will likely be for perjury -- stating, under oath in front of the investigation's grand jury, that he did not reveal Plame's name to anyone. But we, the public, have no idea what Rove said during that testimony, and many find it hard to believe that Rove would have risked a perjury charge by fibbing.

In fact, we don't even know if Rove is the target of Fitzgerald investigation at all -- he might just be collateral damage. Remember, Novak said there were two government sources, and (unless I've missed something) we still don't know the identity of #2 (assuming there even is a #2). Maybe Fitzgerald is circling in on this guy.

It seems likely that Fitzgerald has something -- otherwise he wouldn't have been such a hardass with Cooper. But what it is, exactly, that Fitzgerald knows (or thinks he knows) remains a mystery, and its eventual revelation will be yet another surprise in an already bizarre case.

So there you go -- now you're up to date and can enjoy the show with the rest of us. Cheers!

Headline News!

Bush plays the Nazi card, June 28, 2004.

Senator Byrd Compares Republicans To Nazis, March 02, 2005

GOP Senator Compares Democrats To Nazis, May 19, 2005

Senator Durbin Likens American Servicemen To Nazis, June 15, 2005

It's convenient that you no longer have to go through the trouble of actually calling someone a Nazi anymore. All you have to do is say the word "Nazi" and then, sometime in the subsequent 24 hours, mention a person or group of people, and then OMG ARE YOU CALLING ME HITLER??!! Hooray for modern political discourse!

Joseph Biden, D-DE: Some Republicans on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee requested more American warships for the Persian Sea and Oman Sea, so I reminded them that those bodies of water are technically 'gulfs' and not 'seas.'"

XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT FLASH XXXXX

SEN. BIDEN CALLS REPUBLICANS, SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE, AMERICANS "NAZIS"

"I heart terrorism," we can only assume Biden then muttered under his breath.

BIDEN REFUSES TO APOLOGIZE THAT MEANS HE'S GUILTY P.S. DEAN FULL OF RAGE AND CRAZY DEVELOPING ...

I received my quarterly Social Security statement today. And while I usually file these things away unread, watching Bush's SOTU address last night made me wonder if his administration had sneaked any fearmongering language into the standard boilerplate.

Shore 'nuff:

The Social Security system is facing serious future financial problems, and action is needed soon to make sure that the system is sound when today's younger workers are ready for retirement ... Unless action is taken soon to strengthen Social Security, in just 14 years we will begin paying more in benefits than we collect in taxes. Without changes, by 2042 the Social Security Trust Fund will be exhausted ... We will need to resolve these issues soon to make sure Social Security continues to provide a foundation of protection for future generations as is has done in the past.

As I understand it, the next step in the reform is to outfit all Social Security offices with flashing red lights and klaxons, and replace the personnel with 50's era robots that wave their arms above their heads and cry "Danger! Danger 803-64-7707!!"

I used to write about politics fairly often on this site. And then a funny thing happened: Bush got re-elected. Please note that, by "funny," I don't mean funny "hah hah" or funny "strange," but funny "GODDAMMIT WTF??!!!"

But while the reaction of a lot of progressives to the election was to withdraw from the system and become apathetic about politics altogether, I decided to do something about it. I wrote this rousing essay, where I urged democrats to "dig in your heels, roll up your sleeves, gird your loins and get ready to fight, like the rest of us intend to do." And then, several seconds after having raged against the machine by hitting "Post," I withdrew from the system and became apathetic about politics altogether.

I didn't mean to. But on the following morning I decided that I was sick of post-election analysis and opted to forego NPR and instead listen to KEXP during my morning commute. The problem here, ladies and gentlemen