You talk a lot...

By Carl

...but you're not saying anything.

When a candidate is being questioned for confirmation, one way to know whether it's a slam dunk or if it's a rocky road is how much the candidate him or herself actually speaks. The same is true for a suspect, if you ever get into that situation: the more the cops talk, the less likely they're convinced they have the right man.

As Andrew Malcolm of the LA Times points out:

As of Wednesday morning, the senators had spouted 50,082 words.

In response Judge Sotomayor had been able to utter barely 20,000 words (20,728, to be exact).

Monday was the worst day: Senators 23,175 Sotomayor 942.

Some "hearing." Maybe they ought to call it a "talking."

Clearly, this is a stall tactic designed to make the Senators look good under the "advise and consent" clause of the US Constitution. Things got so bad that Al Franken felt the need to do what is arguably the stupidest thing ever in a Senate confirmation hearing: do shtick

FRANKEN: OK. I -- we're going to have a round two, so I'll ask you some more questions there. What was the one case in "Perry Mason" that Berger won?

Admittedly, this was after some very piercing questioning about Internet regulation and privacy rights in which Sotomayor actually DID have the chance to expound on her views.

In point of fact, there's not a whole lot "there" there, as the only legitimate complaint about Sotomayor has been one, and only one, quote of hers with respect the whole "wise Latina woman," and even there, the context in which she spoke (to an audience of, um, wise Latina women) and the speech itself (on how important it was for wise Latina women to be role models for the community).

A remark she has already expressed regret about. Her rulings and her track record suggest a centrist judge with empathy and compassion for those who deserve it, and stern justice for those who don't.

Could we ask for a better judge? Too many of the "old white men" that have been the hallmarks of the Reagan/Bush administrations have never set foot in a ghetto, never seen the inside of a tenement or housing project, never walked the streets of their own neighborhoods terrified of the next dark alley.

Sotomayor has. I think it's safe to say she knows the difference between need and greed, between those who ask us for help and those who beg us for a free ride. She's seen people in actual need, dealt with them in her life outside of the law.

And she's seen scammers and crooks who hide behind the masks of pain and need. This has clearly shaped her use of the law to promote justice. And since the Supreme Court is all about the interpretation of the law, it would be easy to fall back on the patriarchal "Founders intent" viewpoint as so many fasc-- I mean, conservatives have.

It's easy, in other words, to rule on law in the vacuum of textbooks and precedents. You make the law as strict as possible, and ignore that there are hundreds of millions of people out there, each with a different story, each affected differently by the law. And it should not be policy of the government of the United States to treat anyone unfairly, if avoidable.

The rigid, dogmatic thinking, logic and ice cold, of the past 233 years must be changed to incorporate our new understanding of humanity and humankind. This is what I think Sotomayor brings to the court.

And why the Senate won't need her to speak.

(crossposted to Simply Left Behind)

Hell no, he won't go!

By Capt. Fogg

Quite frankly the idea that our military has become an Evangelical camp-meeting scares me more that the Obama presidency scares the people who think he's a Muslim secret agent or that the Hawaii Bureau of Vital Statistics cooked up a fake birth certificate and the Honolulu newspapers recorded his birth forty some odd years ago as part of a plot to make baby Obama the future president. It's not just the Biblically deluded nature of such people but also the uncontrollable urges they have to believe things for reasons hard for others to understand.

It's hard to know whether U.S. Army Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook really believes the fantasy or whether he simply doesn't want to go to Afghanistan and couldn't bring himself to wear a dress. I would have to assume that he does believe. He claims that he has tremendous support from fellow soldiers -- 90% is his frightening claim.

He would get on the next plane says he if only it could be proved that Barak Obama's birth certificate was real. That's a remarkable statement and if birth certificates needed to be proved beyond establishing that the birth was properly registered, we could easily disallow every president. Quite a can of worms, this is and perhaps it's better to ask for some evidence that, like John McCain, he wasn't born in the USA. Of course there isn't any evidence beyond that malignant viral meme that seems to spread from loony to loony like lice in a flop house.

Of course it isn't just the loons and psychos keeping the idea alive. one of the favorite tricks of our scandal addicted media is to present nasty, stale old memes in new bottles and so we often have Fox hinting that "people are saying" when they aren't and we have Lou Dobbs, fresh out of stories about the Mexican Menace saying "new questions are being raised." No they're not, Lou, it's the same insane calumny coming from yet another psycho. and shame on you for trying to keep the meme alive for fame and profit.

Of course and as we expected, a Federal judge threw the case out this morning and the Federal dumpster already contains the smelly remnants of other similar suits, but thanks to Lou and Fox and the Army of Believers the idea will survive and perhaps longer than our republic. It's not completely new of course, Clinton faced opposition from some in the military based on some some notion that he wasn't really the President. What does it tell us, I have to ask, that the notion that the SCOTUS decision to stop counting ballots in Florida and the serious evidence of voting machine fraud made W's presidency illegitimate has faded away? Maybe it tells us that the great ship of insanity lists heavily to the right. Maybe. New questions are being raised, you know -- and people are saying.

Cross posted from Human Voices

Sarah vs. Sonia

By Mustang Bobby

Following up on this post, Pat Buchanan says that Judge Sonia Sotomayor is getting a free ride because she's a "self-described 'affirmative action baby' from Princeton," whereas Sarah Palin is an up-from-the-sticks conservative who never got a break. "Pundits here gets hoots of appreciation for doing to a white Christian woman what would constitute a hate crime if done to a 'wise Latina woman.'" Conor Clarke notes that there's a difference.

There's absolutely nothing wrong, much less "arch," about criticizing Sarah Palin for being an anti-intellectual demagogue while simultaneously demanding respect for Sonia Sotomayor. Palin's whole shtick is that she's an ordinary American with ordinary American concerns. Which is completely fine. But I'm of the mind that our leaders should be exceptional people -- hard-working Type-A meritocrats with actual expertise -- and I think Sotomayor is one of those people. (Palin, not so much.) That's my preference, of course, and not necessarily the country's. But I like to think it's a perfectly legitimate distinction, not a "hate crime." [Italics in the original.]

I'll go further than that; it should be a requirement that anyone appointed to the Supreme Court or elected to the White House is by far the smartest person in the room. I do not want someone of an average intellect, much less someone who is anti-intellectual, running the country or interpreting the Constitution. We're not talking about a county commission here. (And even if we were, I don't want an incurious boor on the county commission either.)

A couple of other points. First, if Sonia Sotomayor was an affirmative-action admission to Princeton, all that did was get her in the door. After that, she was on her own. It wasn't affirmative-action that got her to the top of her class. (If it was affirmative-action that got her into Yale Law School, she was following in the footsteps of another justice on the Supreme Court, Clarence Thomas. Funny, but I don't remember Mr. Buchanan complaining about Mr. Thomas's admissions history.) By the way, what is wrong with affirmative-action anyway? All it does it make it a level admissions playing field for people who were not born with the automatic credentials (white, male, and trust-funded) to get in to a school like Princeton or Yale. It seems that the people who complain the most about people like Sonia Sotomayor getting a leg up have never faced the challenge of getting into a college or getting a job with history and patriarchy stacked against them.

Second, the Republican mantra of being the party of the "common man" is born out of nothing more than a cynical attempt to curry favor with an electorate that they wouldn't dare be associated with if they could avoid it. Richard Nixon's Southern Strategy played on the fear and loathing of white voters who felt assaulted by the civil rights movement in the 1960's and provided a fertile ground for starting the culture wars against reproductive choice, gay rights, and basically anyone who didn't look, act, or have sex like them. It was, and it continues to be, an exploitation of the foolish and the weak, preying on their fears of the unknown and feeding them the pablum of smaller government and lower taxes. It wins elections, but it doesn't run the country very well. What's worse is that the people who master-minded it don't really care.

What it comes down to is that Sonia Sotomayor, even if she had help along the way, has had to work harder for what she achieved than Sarah Palin ever did. It shows in the way they both dealt with the adversity they have both faced in the last month. Judge Sotomayor has faced down an attack machine that questioned everything from her intellect to her choice of clothing, and she has taken it with grace and aplomb. Gov. Palin has dealt with her self-inflicted public mockery festival with all the maturity of a spoiled child. Sarah Palin took it for granted that she was entitled to whatever she wanted because she's believed in the George W. Bush model that anyone can grow up to be president without having to actually, you know, work at it. It's easy for her to quit her job because it doesn't really mean that much to her, and it's easy to give away something you never had to work for. Sonia Sotomayor has never taken anything for granted.

(Cross-posted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Fireworks, fast food, and the French

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Below is a stunning photo of the Eiffel Tower taken during Tuesday's Bastille Day celebrations. No real reason for posting it. I love Paris, what can I say? (The French are another matter. Sorry... just my Englishness coming out.)

I'm not a huge fan of fireworks, I must admit, though I'm not quite as down on them as Slate's Troy Patterson, who recently wrote a very funny column against them. Best passage:

No way were all men created equal. According to some of the country's top statisticians, exactly half of them are below average, and that is the segment of the population most likely to get too excited about fireworks. Other species highly intrigued by bright lights include moths and venison. Hearing people hoot lustily at a crossette or chrysanthemum, I assume that they are the same sort who lined up at bear-baiting pits back in the day and, in modern times, watch Howie Mandel reality shows.

By the way, did you know that France, haut-gastronomic France, is, among countries, McDonald's' second most profitable market in the world? It's true. Read Slate's Mike Steinberger, oenophile and food writer, on the rather amazing popularity of the fast-food chain in a country not exactly known for its pro-Americanism, appreciation of globalization, and love of bad eats.

Okay, here's the photo:

Quote of the Day: Meghan McCain on Joe the Plumber

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Ms. McCain nails it:

Joe the Plumber -- you can quote me -- is a dumbass. He should stick to plumbing.

There you go. I quoted her.

You really gotta love Meghan McCain. Seriously, I think I'm developing a major crush on her, if I don't have one already. She's still a Republican, I know, and she's still her father's daughter, but there's something to be said for such honesty coming from within the GOP's own ranks, even if many Republicans don't consider her one of their own.

If you're looking for a maverick, Meghan's the McCain with the mojo.

(I just wish she'd comment on Palin. If anyone deserves the no-holds-barred Meghan McCain treatment, after all, it's John's running mate, the soon-to-be ex-governor of Alaska.)

Finally! Someone takes a stab at the right thing!

By Carl

It's about fucking time:

WASHINGTON (AP) — House Democratic leaders, pledging to meet the president's goal of health care legislation before their August break, are offering a $1.5 trillion plan that for the first time would make health care a right and a responsibility for all Americans. Left to pick up most of the tab were medical providers, employers and the wealthy.

"We cannot allow this issue to be delayed. We cannot put it off again," Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce committee, said Tuesday. "We, quite frankly, cannot go home for a recess unless the House and the Senate both pass bills to reform and restructure our health care system."

Healthcare ought to have been a right in the Constitution from the get-go, but back then, people didn't see doctors unless they were dying. And the average age a man lived to was 40, a woman with children had an even shorter life expectancy.

See, it's in the Declaration of Independence, and these asshats who always look to the "intent of the Founders" ought to reacquaint themselves with that document.

There's an awful lot of good in the proposal, as highlighted in these paragraphs:

Under the House Democrats' plan, the federal government would be responsible for ensuring that every person, regardless of income or the state of their health, has access to an affordable insurance plan. Individuals and employers would have new obligations to get coverage, or face hefty penalties.

The legislation calls for a 5.4 percent tax increase on individuals making more than $1 million a year, with a gradual tax beginning at $280,000 for individuals. Employers who don't provide coverage would be hit with a penalty equal to 8 percent of workers' wages, with an exemption for small businesses. Individuals who decline an offer of affordable coverage would pay 2.5 percent of their incomes as a penalty, up to the average cost of a health insurance plan.

In other words, you can't really opt out of the insurance. One way or another, we're not going to let you drag our healthcare costs up by treating the emergency room as your family physician anymore. By the same token, no employer is going to make an extra couple of pennies off the backs of his poor workers by depriving them of the most essential tool they need to do their jobs: their health. I know an awful lot of people who would give up the cafeteria/lunchroom or the soda and candy machines for affordable health insurance.

It's not perfect, it's not even that close to perfect, but it looks like it might be an interesting first step towards what this nation truly deserves: single-payer health insurance whereby NO ONE can make a profit off your body.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

How to win white votes

By Mustang Bobby

Pat Buchanan has a suggestion for the GOP: go racist.

In 2008, Hispanics, according to the latest figures, were 7.4 percent of the total vote. White folks were 74 percent, 10 times as large. Adding just 1 percent to the white vote is thus the same as adding 10 percent to the candidate's Hispanic vote.

If John McCain, instead of getting 55 percent of the white vote, got the 58 percent George W. Bush got in 2004, that would have had the same impact as lifting his share of the Hispanic vote from 32 percent to 62 percent. [...]

Had McCain been willing to drape Jeremiah Wright around the neck of Barack Obama, as Lee Atwater draped Willie Horton around the neck of Michael Dukakis, the mainstream media might have howled. And McCain might be president.

Mr. Buchanan, the dry cleaner called. Your brown shirts are ready.

H/T to Steve.

(Cross-posted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

What is behind all this hide and seek?

By Carol Gee

Waterboarding techniques were not what made 9/11 mastermind, Khalid Sheikh Mohammad confess. He had already started to talk before the "enhanced interrogation" started. And actually at one point, Dick Cheney ‘fessesd up' that rapport, not torture, got intelligence. Following the most recent revelations about Cheney's larger role in the Bush administration's s0-called "war on terror, he is no longer "fessing up" to anything. He is again hiding at an undisclosed location. His daughter, Liz seems to now be his official spokesperson.

Well before Cheney stopped talking this question for Cheney occurred to a blogger: "How come no attacks after the torture stopped?" Here is another question: Why did the CIA hide Dick Cheney’s role in briefing Congress? As it turns out, former Vice President Cheney's campaign to make sure that interrogations could continue as before, to keep lawmakers in line on torture, started midway in the Bush administration .

So, as we are now finding out, the Vice President, not the President, was apparently in the lead of the administration's efforts to run secret operations that were more often than not, outside of the rule of law. For example the May 10, 2005 Justice Department opinions on combined torture techniques were retrospective, designed to give legal cover to something that has already happened. The effect of a related NYT story that misrepresents James Comey's e-mails, claiming that he approved torture, amounted to a pre-emptive strike on the OPR Report that will come out at some point.

The Geneva Convention failed to assure that U.S. detainees received humane treatment. At an international conference in Italy a few weeks ago, Georgetown lawyers from the Center on National Security and the Law were planning to urge a new Geneva Convention for terrorism. Common article 3, they feel is too vague to guide the government of how to protect the security of the United States while also upholding our basic values about justice. UN Special Rapporteur, Philip Alston, last month called for for transparency and accountability as he presented his report on U.S. policies that have led to unlawful deaths and other abuses.

The case of tortured U.S. citizen, Naji Hamdan tested the Obama Administration on human rights. Did they stand silent, as the man who was himself tortured, went on trial in the UAE? With this and far too many other examples, the Obama administration finds itself "between a rock and a hard place." Rightly focusing on the economy, reforming health care, and tackling other issues is still front and center. Over and over again, to "put this behind us," the President or the Justice Department took the same legal position as the former administration. When it comes to how to come under the rule of law both in fact and in spirit they failed to step up and do the right thing immediately. Opting for secrecy, turning a blind eye, and assigning a low priority to accountability, are no longer working however.

Dragged kicking and screaming, Congress and the administration are being forced little by little to look back, in spite to their most commendable and forward looking policy changes and needed reforms. In some kind of magical way, the current Senate focus on confirmation hearings for Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court reminds us all once again that we are a nation of laws, not men. . . or (thank goodness) women. We will get back into balance with time, and because of how our founders set up the system. We must believe this.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

Even Republicans don't think Palin is qualified to be president

By Michael J.W. Stickings

According to a new poll, only a third of Republicans think she's qualified, way down from the 71 per cent last year, but... it's still 33 percent. I'm not sure whether to focus on the fact that Republicans seem to have gotten back some of the sanity they lost during their long love affair with Palin or on the fact that so many of them are still crazy enough to think she could, and probably should, be president.

160

By Creature

That's the number of Republican amendments that were included in the Senate HELP committee's version of the health care bill. Zero is the number of votes the bill got from Republicans who pushed for those amendments. Why Democrats even bother dealing with Republicans is beyond me.

**********

For more on the HELP committee's vote, another major milestone on the road to meaningful reform, see The Hill. -- MJWS

So where was Mark Sanford? Who knew?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I haven't written on the Mark Sanford saga in a while -- mainly because there hasn't been much new/newsworthy to report (he's still in office and he's apparently trying to reconcile with his wife), but also because, I admit, I grew tired of it -- but The State has some new details on Sanford's trip to Argentina to see his mistress (or, to be more precise, on the story he spun to cover up that trip) that make his irresponsible actions all the more disturbing:

Gov. Mark Sanford’s chief of staff, Scott English, called the governor’s cell phones 15 times during the governor’s secret trip to Argentina to visit his lover last month. But the governor never picked up.

Meanwhile Sanford’s communications director, Joel Sawyer, worked to minimize the fact the governor had been out of touch with his staff for about four days.

Records released Monday show Sawyer juggled e-mails and media calls from around the nation, giving a consistent message that was later proven to be untrue.

Those records also show Sanford declined a dinner invitation from a company looking to expand its business in South Carolina because Sanford planned to be in Argentina that day.

Sanford has since said he intentionally misled Sawyer and other staff members to believe he was hiking the Appalachian Trail when he was really with his Argentine lover.

Let me be clear about this, once again: What Sanford did in private is his business -- and his family's. It shows poor judgement, to be sure, but I don't think we ought to judge the private lives of politicians (unless they truly cross the line into illegal or unethical behaviour).

But... he's a state governor, the holder of the highest office in South Carolina. It is simply unacceptable that he just up and disappeared, that he deceived, lied to, his own staff, to his closest advisors. It is unacceptable that they couldn't reach him. Privacy -- yes. But not at the expense of one's duty to the public. If he values his own private life so much, and if it gets in the way of his duty to the public (which it apparently did), he should resign.

But... no. He's still there, refusing to step down, his ego still getting the better of him (and of South Carolinians), and he'll no doubt follow in a long line of moral transgressors and hypocrites by re-emerging a changed man, all for the better, no harm done.

But harm was done -- to his wife, to his family, to his staff, to all those who care about him both personally and politically, as well as to his state and its citizens. He put himself first, not just before all else but at the expense of all else, and, in going AWOL, he crossed the line. There's no way he should still be in office.

It looks like we'll still have John Ensign to kick around some more

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Good news for Democrats, I suppose.

Sen. John Ensign of Nevada -- he with the mistress and the cuckolded husband on his staff, he with the parents paying the mistress off, etc. -- has announced that he has no intention of resigning and will run for re-election in 2012.

Let the "breathtaking hypocrisy" continue!

Scared white men

By Creature

I haven't been following the Sotomayor hearings too closely, but from what I've seen she's making the Senate Republicans look bad and the Senate Republicans are making themselves look even worse. It's like they're not even trying to hide their racism. Maybe that's a good thing in an emperor-no-clothes kind of way.

Positive reaction to the House Democrats' health-care plan

By Michael J.W. Stickings

House Democrats released their long-awaited health-care reform bill yesterday, and the plan it proposes includes a government-run component (a so-called "public option"). No, it's not exactly the single-payer, universal system that many of us prefer (and that we have here in Canada), but it's comprehensive and ground-breaking, and likely would ensure coverage for the vast majority of Americans -- in fact, almost all of them.

The right, of course, is already objecting both to the public option, which it deems to be socialism, and to the fact that taxes would be raised on the wealthy to pay for the plan, but Paul Krugman considers it a "bargain":

OK, so the CBO score for the 3-committee House health care plan is in: $1 trillion over the next decade for 97 percent coverage of legal residents.

That’s a bargain: the catastrophe of being ill without insurance, the fear of losing insurance, all ended — for much less than the Bush administration’s useless $1.35 trillion first tax cut, quickly followed by another $350 billion.

And that’s just the budget cost, which the House proposes covering partly with savings elsewhere, partly with higher taxes on very high incomes. As Jon Cohn points out, the overall effect of expanded coverage will probably be lower health care costs for America as a whole.

There is now absolutely no excuse for Congress to balk at doing the right thing.

No excuse whatsoever.

In addition to Krugman, both Cohn and Ezra Klein, two leading health-care commentators, think it looks good. Cohn's reaction is "strongly positive." (Make sure to check out their posts for more on the details of the plan.)

There is still the Senate, of course -- where there is less unity among leading Democrats -- and still much to be done. (And, of course, there is Obama, who, while committed to wholesale reform, has been less than specific when it comes to the details of his desired outcome.) Still, this is an exceptionally positive development, and an encouraging step towards the creation of a fair and equitable health-care system for all Americans.

A welcome breath of carbon-neutral air

By Carl

Sarah Palin is an idiot.

That said, there are legitimate concerns with respect to cap-and-trade policies in an energy policy, centered mostly around how easy it is to game the system to benefit large polluters, as well as a moral objection to the introduction of free market solutions to essentially a social problem. Rather than seek a reduction in carbon emissions, cap-and-trade effectively shifts the burden, spreading it around.

To a degree, this is true, but it's also true that there is a heavy financial incentive on the part of those who have credits to trade not to pollute more (they have less income), and as time goes on, the price of credits will index up, thus negating the pollution incentive for the purchasers of credits.

It's a gradual withdrawal of carbon from the pollution cycle, and therefore manageable.

Palin raises a ridiculous point, particularly in light of what other criticisms of cap-and-trade amount to.

She claims:

American prosperity has always been driven by the steady supply of abundant, affordable energy. Particularly in Alaska, we understand the inherent link between energy and prosperity, energy and opportunity, and energy and security. Consequently, many of us in this huge, energy-rich state recognize that the president's cap-and-trade energy tax would adversely affect every aspect of the U.S. economy.

There is no denying that as the world becomes more industrialized, we need to reform our energy policy and become less dependent on foreign energy sources. But the answer doesn't lie in making energy scarcer and more expensive! Those who understand the issue know we can meet our energy needs and environmental challenges without destroying America's economy.

Cap-and-trade does not limit energy production in the sense that it sets a ceiling on it. If some company decides that it needs more energy, and it is willing to make the rather punitive payment to use it, then it is free to do so. Cap-and-trade is not a quota system with finite limits.

Indeed, if anything, these voluntary measures will help extend America's own fossil fuel supplies as companies recognize there is profit in protecting the environment.

And profit creates jobs. And jobs create an economy.

Now, you don't have to take my word for it. Here's Conor Clarke, subbing in for Andrew Sullivan:

Cap and trade creates revenue, which can be used to mitigate the costs for consumers. When the Congressional Budget Office did it's analysis of the distribution of the costs and benefits of the House's cap and trade bill, it found that the poorest quintile would actually benefit.

Cap-and-trade attempts to quantify the social costs of business decisions. If I litter, I create a job for a sanitation worker, which means a wage must be paid. In addition, I help feed a vermin population, which means a health official must be hired.

American society has always been predicated on the quantifiable. It's the Flatlanders' best method of proving their superiority. I can compare my wallet to yours, and if mine has more, I'm a better person.

Which might be true, but probably is not. As Warren Buffett so often points out, nobody gets anywhere in this world without the support of the people and society around him or her. Those who can shunt aside as much of the costs of success as possible to hidden and unmeasurable resources make pure profit.

Which is why it's important to account for these as closely as possible. Level the playing field, and open the books.

Who knows? Maybe it will even turn Alaska into a powerhouse state!

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

How not to be a conscientious objector

By Mustang Bobby

A soldier in Georgia is refusing to deploy to Afghanistan because he says he doesn't have to obey the orders of the Commander-in-Chief:

U.S. Army Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook, set to deploy to Afghanistan, says he shouldn’t have to go.

His reason?

Barack Obama was never eligible to be president because he wasn’t born in the United States.

Actually, Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961, two years after it became a state.

Cook’s lawyer, Orly Taitz, who has also challenged the legitimacy of Obama’s presidency in other courts, filed a request last week in federal court seeking a temporary restraining order and status as a conscientious objector for his client.

In the 20-page document — filed July 8 with the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia — the California-based Taitz asks the court to consider granting his client’s request based upon Cook’s belief that Obama is not a natural-born citizen of the United States and is therefore ineligible to serve as commander-in-chief of the U.S. Armed Forces.

Cook further states he “would be acting in violation of international law by engaging in military actions outside the United States under this President’s command. ... simultaneously subjecting himself to possible prosecution as a war criminal by the faithful execution of these duties.”

Speaking as someone who was -- and still is -- a conscientious objector, this is not how it's done. I can possibly understand having a change of heart about being in the military and going to war to kill people once you're in, but when you've reached the rank of major, it's a little late. Second, using the "war crimes" excuse calls into question your understanding of both the concept of war and the rules of engagement. (I may be a C.O., but I realize that there are rules about how to fight a war.) Finally, using the "birther" excuse as the justification for disobeying legitimate orders is not part of the "conscientious objector" scope of the matter, especially the "conscientious" part. I and all the other C.O.'s I knew never called into question the legitimacy of the government, the armed forces, or the command structure. It was based on pacifism, not nutsery.

Maj. Cook should perhaps try for a Section 8 instead. He probably has a shot at that.

(Cross-posted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Fête Nationale! ... Le Quatorze Juillet ... Bon Bastille Day!

By J. Thomas Duffy

Bon Bastille Day, to all our French friends!



As we all know, this is the day marking "the 1790 Fête de la Fédération, held on the first anniversary of the storming of the Bastille on 14 July 1789; the anniversary of the storming of the Bastille fortress-prison was seen as a symbol of the uprising of the modern nation, and of the reconciliation of all the French inside the constitutional monarchy which preceded the First Republic, during the French Revolution."

If there's a party in your area, then get to partying!

We'll kick one off here, with one of our favorites, Mireille Mathieu, who we first got hip to in the 1973 Claude Lelouch gem, "La bonne année."



Bon Bastille Day!

Mireille Mathieu sings La marseillaise



(Here's a cleaner, audio-only verision)

Movie fans may prefer this one, the scene from Casablanca

Or, one from another French icon -- Serge Gainsbourg chante La Marseillaise à Strasbourg

Go to the BBC for "In pictures: Bastille Day parade"




(Cross-posted at The Garlic.)

Transparency

By Michael J.W. Stickings

It's good to see that the majority of the America people see right through Sarah Palin's bullshit:

A majority of Americans believe that Sarah Palin is resigning as governor of Alaska not because it's in the best interest of her state but because it will benefit her political career, a new CBS News poll finds.

Just 24 percent of those accept Palin's explanation that she resigned because it was the right thing to do for Alaska. More than twice that percentage – 52 percent – cited her political ambition as the reason for her resignation. An additional 14 percent said they don't know the reason.

Even Republicans are skeptical of the explanation, with a higher percentage saying Palin resigned for her political career (36 percent) than saying she did so for Alaska (31 percent).

Of course, it doesn't speak well of the American people that the number isn't higher. What's obvious is obvious, after all.

Cheney's secret assassination program

By Michael J.W. Stickings

It is being reported -- by the Times and the Guardian, inter alia -- that the secret (and never fully operational) program that Cheney didn't tell Congress about would have involved assassinating al Qaeda leaders around the world, including in countries friendly to the U.S.

Really? That's it. Not that an assassination program isn't serious, or illegal, but I was expecting more, something more juicy. (After all, the U.S. already does this, more or less -- in Pakistan, for example.) But maybe there's a lot more to it, as TPM's David Kurtz suggests:

So regardless of how you might feel about targeted assassinations, it's not at all clear why this particular program would be so radioactive -- compared to what the U.S. was, and still is, doing more or less openly -- that (1) Cheney would demand the CIA not brief Congress about it for eight years; (2) Panetta would cancel it immediately upon learning of it; and (3) Democrats would howl quite so loudly when finally informed.

*****

It doesn't add up. There's more to this story to be told.

It's all speculation at this point, but I tend to agree.

Undoubtedly, there's still a lot more we don't know about this hyper-controversial program. There was a reason Cheney kept it so secret, after all. And the reason is that it was probably much worse than these reports indicate (like a much broader assassination program, perhaps targeting citizens of friendly countries).

We shall see. Maybe.

Guys like us

By Capt. Fogg

Boy, the way Glenn Miller played!
Songs that made the Hit Parade.
Guys like us, we had it made.
Those were the days!

We should worry. There are doubts. We don't know enough about her. She's "ethnic" and therefore might have "empathy" for other ethnics and therefore she might be prejudiced against us - and lets face it she's dangerous because we can't know how people like that think. Do we want someone with a special social or gender or ethnic perspective instead of a regular American anyway? It's not that we're prejudiced, it's that she probably is because, well you know. . . aren't they all?

And you knew where you were then.
Girls were girls and men were men.
Mister, we could use a man like Herbert Hoover again.

Change the "she" to a "he" and you have the same whiny, timorous Archie Bunker mentality that assured us their fear and loathing of Obama had nothing to do with the fact that he was a Ni -- I mean African American.

Turn on C-Span this morning and you have the same white collar bigotry from the same, expensively dressed, white Anglo-Saxon senators from the same tradition and the same party that fought school segregation, supported restricted real estate markets and hotels and caressed their bibles while telling us it was and should be a felony to marry outside your race. The same people whose family values trump yours, who want you to affirm their religion regardless of what you believe, who would never, however be so rude as to use a racial epithet when blackballing you from the club. The same tailored suits who pretend to solemn deliberation to hide their knee-jerk prejudice. She's just not suitable, not one of us, don't you know old chap. It's nothing personal.

A wise Latina woman? Not at my country club, not on my court.

Didn't need know welfare state.
Everybody pulled his weight.
Gee, our old LaSalle ran great.
Those were the days!

(Cross-posted from Human Voices.)

Sotomayor and Whitehouse

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Sonia Sotomayor will be confirmed easily by the Senate, with substantial Republican support, but Conservatives like Dear Leader Rush will continue to take ugly swipes at her, just as they have all along. But no matter. She is, as she proved once again yesterday, with her opening statement, a remarkable woman and an impressive jurist. Yes, she said all the right things, and her statement was nothing if not carefully crafted, but there is no denying, I think, her qualifications for the highest court in the land, not to mention her devotion to the law:

In the past month, many Senators have asked me about my judicial philosophy. It is simple: fidelity to the law. The task of a judge is not to make the law – it is to apply the law. And it is clear, I believe, that my record in two courts reflects my rigorous commitment to interpreting the Constitution according to its terms; interpreting statutes according to their terms and Congress's intent; and hewing faithfully to precedents established by the Supreme Court and my Circuit Court. In each case I have heard, I have applied the law to the facts at hand.

Yes, yes, her critics can point to this case or that as, to them, an all-too-revealing exception, and they can point to her race and/or gender as, to them, cause for immediate disqualification (according to their double standard, a woman of colour is fundamentally a product of her "identity," and a racist/racialist when she discusses race, but a white male is above it all, as if his perspective is not that of the privileged), but she has her record to counter their lies and smears.

She has been appointed by Democrats and Republicans alike. She believes in the law, and in the judge's primary responsibility to apply the law fairly to all. She is a woman of colour with an inspiring background and a wealth of experience from which to draw, not so as to make up the law but so as to understand the world around her -- to relate to that world, to its good and evil and everything else in between, to the richness and diversity that appears before her in her capacity both as a judge and as a human being.

Sonia Sotomayor will make a very fine Supreme Court justice.

**********

Speaking of impressive, how about the opening statement (via Benen) of Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), which included this:

In the last two and a half months and today, my Republican colleagues have talked a great deal about judicial modesty and restraint. Fair enough to a point, but that point comes when these words become slogans, not real critiques of your record. Indeed, these calls for restraint and modesty, and complaints about "activist" judges, are often codewords, seeking a particular kind of judge who will deliver a particular set of political outcomes.

It is fair to inquire into a nominee's judicial philosophy, and we will here have a serious and fair inquiry. But the pretence that Republican nominees embody modesty and restraint, or that Democratic nominees must be activists, runs starkly counter to recent history.

I particularly reject the analogy of a judge to an "umpire" who merely calls "balls and strikes." If judging were that mechanical, we would not need nine Supreme Court Justices. The task of an appellate judge, particularly on a court of final appeal, is often to define the strike zone, within a matrix of Constitutional principle, legislative intent, and statutory construction.

The "umpire" analogy is belied by Chief Justice Roberts, though he cast himself as an "umpire" during his confirmation hearings. Jeffrey Toobin, a well-respected legal commentator, has recently reported that "[i]n every major case since he became the nation's seventeenth Chief Justice, Roberts has sided with the prosecution over the defendant, the state over the condemned, the executive branch over the legislative, and the corporate defendant over the individual plaintiff." Some umpire. And is it a coincidence that this pattern, to continue Toobin's quote, "has served the interests, and reflected the values of the contemporary Republican party"? Some coincidence.

For all the talk of "modesty" and "restraint," the right wing Justices of the Court have a striking record of ignoring precedent, overturning congressional statutes, limiting constitutional protections, and discovering new constitutional rights: the infamous Ledbetter decision, for instance; the Louisville and Seattle integration cases; the first limitation on Roe v. Wade that outright disregards the woman's health and safety; and the DC Heller decision, discovering a constitutional right to own guns that the Court had not previously noticed in 220 years. Some "balls and strikes." Over and over, news reporting discusses "fundamental changes in the law" wrought by the Roberts Court's right wing flank. The Roberts Court has not kept the promises of modesty or humility made when President Bush nominated Justices Roberts and Alito.

Very, very well put.

Liberals and Democrats need to fight back against the myth, propagated by the right and regurgitated by the media, of conservative judicial neutrality. Whitehouse's statement was exactly what needed to be said.

Benjamin is no Gupta (and that's a very good thing)

By Michael J.W. Stickings

President Obama today introduced Dr. Regina Benjamin as the new U.S. surgeon general (pending confirmation, of course). I don't know anything about her -- in fact, I'd never heard of her until today. Looking over her career accomplishments, though -- notably: family physician, founder of the Bayou La Batre Rural Health Clinic (which was destroyed by Hurricane Katrina), government appointee (both federally and in Alabama), current president of the Alabama Medical Association -- she seems like a deserving choice.

Is she up for the largely symbolic role of U.S. surgeon general, a job that is more public relations than medicine? Hopefully yes.

At the very least, she's no Sanjay Gupta, the CNN celebrity doctor who shills for Big Pharma and promotes the interests of the profit-driven medical establishment, a flack whom I wrote about here, here, and here, back when it looked like, as Obama's first choice, he was poised to become surgeon general.

Suffice it here to say that I don't much care for him.

While Benjamin may lack Gupta's star power and telegenic splendor (though, to be fair, I haven't yet seen her on TV), she has not, from what I can tell, compromised herself or her principles in pursuit of the god-almighty dollar. Yes, it's important to have someone in the position who is a good communicator, and (who knows?) she may very well be one, but I'll take the family physician who specializes in rural health over the media darling with the corporate connections regardless.

**********

Interestingly, Obama prefaced his introduction of Dr. Benjamin with a re-statement of his commitment to health-care reform. He didn't utter the words "public" and "option" together, nor did he say anything about government-run care, preferring instead to emphasize expanding coverage and ensuring choice, which could be telling.

I must admit, I'm worried. What does expanding coverage mean? Not universal coverage, to be sure, and not guaranteed coverage. And what does choice mean? More private options?

Still, Obama was admirably adamant about the need for reform:

I know there are those who believe we should wait to solve this problem, or take a more incremental approach, or simply do nothing. But this is the kind of criticism we heard when the country tried to pass Medicare, a program that is now providing quality care to generations of American seniors. It's the kind of criticism we heard when we tried to pass the Children's Health Insurance Program, which has provided quality care and coverage to millions of kids. It's the same Washington thinking that has ignored big challenges and put off tough decisions for decades. And it is precisely that kind of small thinking that has led us into the current predicament.

So make no mistake: The status quo on health care is no longer an option for the United States of America.

*****

This is no longer a problem we can wait to fix. This is about who we are as a country. Health care reform is about every family's health, but it's also about the health of the economy.

So I just want to put everybody on notice, because there was a lot of chatter during the week that I was gone: We are going to get this done. Inaction is not an option. And for those nay-sayers and cynics who think that this is not going to happen, don't bet against us. We are going to make this thing happen, because the American people desperately need it.

Big talk. I just hope he backs it up not with some tinkering of the status quo but with wholesale change, with big thinking that includes a robust public option.

Anything less would be not just a disappointment but a failure.

Ice Age Meltdown

By Carl

It's been very interesting to watch the dynamic of the Republican party over the past six or seven months, ever since losing the 2008 election in a landslide.

For example, the intramural backstabbing is beginning in earnest on the one person who probably stood the best strategic chance of reuniting the party quickly, Sarah Palin:

What is remarkable is the contempt Palin has engendered within her own party and the fact that so many of her GOP detractors are willing, even eager, to express it publicly -- even with Palin an early front-runner for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination.

Some admit their preference that she stay in Alaska and forget about any national ambitions.

"I am of the strong opinion that, at present day, she is not ready to be the leading voice of the GOP," said Todd Harris, a party strategist who likened Palin to the hopelessly dated "Miami Vice" -- something once cool that people regard years later with puzzlement and laughter. "It's not even that she hasn't paid her dues. I personally don't think she's ready to be commander in chief."

And Harris was polite, compared to some of the vitriol!

What I find most interesting is that this is the precise venom spewed by the conservatives and Republicans for the past sixteen years as they held sway over, first, Congress, then the Presidency, and finally the Supreme Court. Liberals and Democrats were not only attacked, they were mutilated.

Having seen a country grow tired of these divisive tactics and having seen their power slip like an ice cube down a glacier on a sunny day, Republicans have not learned to put the flame-throwers down, instead finding the one target left that they can legitimately hose down.

Each other:

It is more than cruel sport, this picking apart of Alaska's departing chief executive. The sniping reflects a serious split within the Republican Party between its professional ranks and some of its most ardent followers, which threatens not only to undermine Palin's White House ambitions -- if, indeed, she harbors them -- but to complicate the party's search for a way back to power in Washington.

There are the power-brokers on the one hand, the rank-and-file on the other. The brokers know how to get things done. The rank-and-file knows how to get people nominated. Palin stood a chance at pushing the rope that is the Republican party towards unity. Her massive appeal with the masses would have put her in good stead with the powers that be if she learned to be a bit more flexible in how she is being handled.

Indeed, I suspect part of the problem the GOP has now, and perhaps the problem the Democrats finally shed with Barack Obama, is the need to micromanage even their candidate for President (nominally the party leader). The Republican party has been the slave to a formula laid down in the 1980s by Lee Atwater, reinforced by Newt Gingrich, and then set in stone by Karl Rove, a strategy of attack without mercy, propose with as little detail as possible, and spin, spin, spin.

And as the last twenty five years have shown, it works. For a while.

It didn't hurt the GOP that the Democrats threw candidates against the wall men who had no business running... Michael DUKAKIS?!?!?! John Kerry????... which only reinforced the general notion (which they then incorporated) that the GOP was invincible. It also didn't hurt the GOP that demographics were on their side, as manufacturing jobs, generally held by more conservative elements of society, fled the bluer states into the redder states, replacing dying agricultural jobs.

Now that those jobs are being offshored, it's left conservative men and women angry, but has also marginalized the GOP as a regional powerhouse and nothing else.

Hard to say where this ends. My suspicion is that the Republican Party will cleave open and a third party will emerge, which will pretty much guarantee a Democratic hegemony for a decade easily, and perhaps two, until a candidate emerges for either of the two fractions of the GOP that can heal the wounds and attract followers from the other party.

Perhaps this is Palin's ultimate goal.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

Liz Cheney reacts to her dad's lawbreaking by calling Dems weak on terror

By Creature

For some reason I feel we've been down this road before.  Really, Liz, your dad could have killed and captured as many al Qaeda leaders as he liked, except he was supposed to follow the law while doing so.  Informing Congress is not a hard task, unless you've got something to hide or your last name is Cheney.  

Funny man

By Capt. Fogg

One of the apparent characteristics of autism is the inability to pick up on social cues or to be able to judge other people's reactions. I know I'm not being very scientific here, but it seems to me there's another form of this inability that's far more common and perhaps more complex. It's the complete lack of perspective that allows one to tell if a joke is appropriate or funny or insulting or outrageous, coupled with the inability to except any humor whatever at one's own expense.

I think I see it in people who were willing to tear David Letterman's throat out but are unable to see anything wrong with calling President Obama's 11-year-old daughter a whore. I think I see it at its worse in people like Ann Coulter advocating giving a federal judge rat poison, saying people that don't think such things are funny have no sense of humor while accusing all sorts of people of persecuting and stalking her. We saw it when Rush called Chelsea Clinton the "White House dog" and was defended by the "Democrats can't take a joke" crowd. (Although Fox denies it ever happened, I saw it.)

Did we just see it again with former Nixon aide and improbable pundit Pat Buchanan?

Well, first, with regard to Levi, I think First Dude up there in Alaska, Todd Palin, ought to take Levi down to the creek and hold his head underwater until the thrashing stops.

Context means a lot with humor, and this wasn't a bit of late night stand-up, but rather presented in the worst context possible, on national television. Yes, it's a coarser, more sophomoric, and nastier national television culture than once it was. I can't imagine Walter Kronkite for instance giggling on the air with such a "joke." But, once again, I suspect that there's some pathology involved in thinking such mean spirited, aggressive and inflammatory humor would be appropriate for news network programming -- even if it's common in such lowbrow offerings as "Morning Joe." I won't go so far as to call this an exclusively Republican disease. Lord knows we have Jesse "hymie town" Jackson to look to, but in these times I think it almost defines the party.

It used to be easier to dismiss the man as a fringe element kook, but in our new Republican party where yesterday's sludge is today's creme de la creme, Buchanan, the man whose record of anti-Semitism, opposition to every piece of civil rights legislation marks him like Cain and who advocated that Nixon commit felony obstruction of justice, still seems more respectable than his younger brethren in bombast.

Will Holder investigate Bush's torture regime? If so, how far will he go? (Likely not far enough.)

By Michael J.W. Stickings

By now, I suspect, many of you have read, or at least read about, Newsweek's article on Attorney General Eric Holder and the possible appointment of "a prosecutor to investigate the Bush administration's brutal interrogation practices" (i.e., torture). Like Glenn Greenwald, I was, initially, optimistic. Finally, I thought. It's about time. And, like Creature, I was also firmly in "the I'll-believe-it-when-I-see-it camp."

Well, it looks like Glenn is right:

New facts about what that investigation would entail and, more importantly, would exclude -- facts added by [yesterday]'s Washington Post -- strongly suggest it's the opposite. At least if that article is to be believed -- and it seems clear that Holder dispatched his allies to leak his plans in order to gauge reaction -- the investigation will only target "rogue" CIA interrogators who exceeded the limits of what John Yoo authorized, and would not include high-level policy makers who authorized the torture tactics and implemented America's torture regime.

What I thought was that Obama and Holder were playing more of the good cop, bad cop routine that has come to characterize Obama's PR handling of key issues. (It's usually Obama and Emanuel.) In this case, Obama was, as president, remaining above the partisan fray, not only refusing to commit to an investigation but also seemingly against one altogether, talking up bipartisanship and the need to look to the future, not to the past. Ultimately, it's Holder's call, though, more or less, and that has afforded Obama some protection. If there's an investigation, it's because Holder wants one, not Obama, because it's what the law requires (or demands), or at least because the country's chief law enforcement official (Holder) thinks it's the right thing to do, regardless of political calculation.

But now what?

"I hope that whatever decision I make would not have a negative impact on the president's agenda," said Holder. "But that can't be a part of my decision." No, but while he has "the responsibility of enforcing the nation's laws," he is also "part of the president's team." And it's not at all clear that the president and his team want to go ahead with an investigation into what happened under his predecessor, at least not a serious one, one that examines not just what "rogue" CIA interrogators did but what was authorized and by whom at the very top. Indeed, that an investigation would only target "rogue" agents is despicable. What it suggests is that "the president's team" thinks that what is needed is not the truth but some effective scapegoating. For if the whole sordid mess can be blamed on a few "rogue" agents, just like a few "rogue" troops were blamed for what happened at Abu Ghraib without a full accounting of who authorized what, then Bush and Cheney and their various minions will essentially be let off the hook. Not only that, but "the president's team" would effectively be concluding that what was authorized was not actually improper or illegal. Who knew that Obama would be such a staunch supporter of Cheney and Yoo?

Well, we're not there quite yet, but the signs aren't exactly encouraging. It's not that I don't think that Obama and Holder are honourable men, it's that I think they'll let partisan political considerations trump doing what is right for America. And, make no mistake, uncovering the truth is what is right for America, and for the world beyond. An ongoing suppression of the truth, when so much was hoped for from Obama, would only foster cynicism at home and abroad and increase the likelihood of the very same abuses happening again and again in future, because the abusers would effectively have gotten away with it. Those who don't learn from the past are doomed to repeat it, after all.

**********

One other point, which Creature touched upon. The current media take, driven by Republican spin (and, make no mistake, Republicans are behind what the media are saying), is that an investigation into what happened under Bush would increase partisan rancour and doom Obama's domestic agenda (health care, global warming, energy, the economy, etc.). What it suggests is that Republicans are more than willing to play ball with Obama now and that Obama, and Democrats generally, delve into the past at their own, and their own agenda's, peril.

Nonsense, I say.

Republicans aren't playing ball, as we saw with Obama's economic stimulus package. They're already partisan -- and they're already trying to torpedo every last major part of Obama's domestic agenda, from cap-and-trade on carbon emissions to a "public option" on health care. It is hardly possible that an investigation into Bush's torture regime would make Republicans less likely to support Obama or render Obama's agenda less likely to succeed. If Obama succeeds, it will not be because Republicans played ball, and supported him, but in spite of their rigid opposition to his agenda.

So don't buy the spin. This has nothing to do with Obama's agenda and everything to do with what must be done to uncover the truth about a terrible chapter in recent American history.

What the media are reporting is a threat, that's all, a threat that can't be backed up. I am not terribly optimistic, at least not at the moment, but I am hopeful that Obama and Holder know this to be the case.

If nothing else, at least an investigation, even one with a weak mandate, would get the ball rolling. (For more on this, and on Holder's independence from Emanuel and Axelrod, see Scott Horton.)

Sarah Palin and the politics of resentment

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Here's our Quote of the Day, from Frank Rich's excellent Sunday NYT column on Palin, Palinism, and the GOP:

No less than 71 percent of Republicans said they would vote for her for president. That overwhelming majority isn’t just the “base” of the Republican Party that liberals and conservatives alike tend to ghettoize as a rump backwater minority. It is the party, or pretty much what remains of it in the Barack Obama era.

That’s why Palin won’t go gently into the good night, much as some Republicans in Washington might wish. She is not just the party’s biggest star and most charismatic television performer; she is its only star and charismatic performer. Most important, she stands for a genuine movement: a dwindling white nonurban America that is aflame with grievances and awash in self-pity as the country hurtles into the 21st century and leaves it behind. Palin gives this movement a major party brand and political plausibility that its open-throated media auxiliary, exemplified by Glenn Beck, cannot. She loves the spotlight, can raise millions of dollars and has no discernible reason to go fishing now except for self-promotional photo ops.

The essence of Palinism is emotional, not ideological. Yes, she is of the religious right, even if she winks literally and figuratively at her own daughter’s flagrant disregard of abstinence and marriage. But family-values politics, now more devalued than the dollar by the philandering of ostentatiously Christian Republican politicians, can only take her so far. The real wave she’s riding is a loud, resonant surge of resentment and victimization that’s larger than issues like abortion and gay civil rights.

*****

It’s more likely that she will never get anywhere near the White House, and not just because of her own limitations. The Palinist “real America” is demographically doomed to keep shrinking. But the emotion it represents is disproportionately powerful for its numbers. It’s an anger that Palin enjoyed stoking during her “palling around with terrorists” crusade against Obama on the campaign trail. It’s an anger that’s curdled into self-martyrdom since Inauguration Day.

Brilliantly put -- Rich at his finest. (Make sure to read the whole thing.) And, as of right now, it is true, I think, that Palin is the Republicans' "last presidential candidate standing":

Such would-be competitors as Mark Sanford, John Ensign and Newt Gingrich are too carnally compromised for the un-Clinton party. Mike Huckabee is Palin-lite. Tim Pawlenty, Bobby Jindal — really? That leaves the charisma-challenged Mitt Romney, precisely the kind of card-carrying Ivy League elitist Palinists loathe, no matter how hard he tries to cosmetically alter his history as a socially liberal fat-cat banker. Palin would crush him like a bug.

I would just caution that the 2012 election is still a long way off. It's Obama's to lose, of course, but there's ample time for the Republicans to regroup -- if not for that election, then certainly for 2016. (It could be Jeb by then, or perhaps Cantor, or another who isn't currently on the presidential radar.)

I'm hoping the Republican Party continues to embrace Palin -- if not Palinism, a far more noxious and malevolent phenomenon, a genuinely dangerous political movement -- for a good long time. The reality, though, is that it will eventually emerge from its Palin obsession, perhaps sooner rather than later, and, when it does, it will be stronger and more of an electoral threat to the Democrats than it is now (or may be in 2012).

Let's enjoy the GOP's Palin Era while it lasts, but let's not forget to look with sober anticipation to its successor, whatever and whomever it may be.

Vaudeville banana peel gag update!

By J. Thomas Duffy

We needed a softball one like this today ...

Oh, man, you know it was bound to happen to someone, at some point, that it was inevitable.

After all, we already have a growing menace of people having auto accidents while texting, you just had to expect some dunderhead coming along and ...

Well ... Enter Alexa Longueira ...

Teen Girl Falls In Open Manhole While Texting

It was an accident waiting to happen -- an open sewer and a 15-year-old girl who was texting while she walked.

Alexa Longueira, a high school sophomore, was walking along Victory Boulevard near Travis Avenue on Staten Island Wednesday evening when she felt the earth move and was plunged into smelly darkness.

She said the manhole she fell in to was left open and unattended with no warning signs or orange cones. She said two workers with the New York City Department of Environmental Protection failed to secure the area as they prepared to flush the sewer.

Somebody send this girl a boxed set of Buster Keaton, Charlie Chaplin, and Harold Lloyd DVDs!

Yeah, I know, she could have been hurt, but, you gotta admit, this is pretty hysterical.

Jonathan Turley weighs in on the legal angle, in his cleverly-titled "OMG SNERT HAS NU TXT TORT! Girl Walks Into Open Sewer Hole While Texting":

The high school sophomore has a case. While she was negligent in texting and walking, the courts have previously ruled that cities must anticipate inattentive people or people with disabilities who may not see an open manhole or ditch. In Fletcher v. City of Aberdeen (1959), the city workers failed to put back barriers around an open hole and the court found that the city had to anticipate such individuals who cannot see such a danger. Likewise, Robinson v. Pioche, Bayerque & Co. (1855), a court found that the inebriation of an individual was not a defense for a city. In a statement that may fit this teenager’s case, the court held that “a drunken man is as much entitled to a safe street as a sober one, and much more in need of it.”

And, yes, the family is practicing shouting out "Show me the money":

Longueira said she was helped out of the five-foot deep sewer by an apologetic DEP worker.

She went to the hospital and the city opened an investigation, issuing the following statement:

"We regret that this happened and wish the young woman a speedy recovery."

The Longueira family wants more than get well wishes. They may sue. Alexa's mother, Kim, said: "It could have been an elderly person, a mother pushing a stroller. It could have been anyone."

Alexa lost one of her sneakers in the sewer. She does not want it back.

The girl's mother said Alexa will see more doctors next week to get an MRI and check for damage to her spine.

Might add, go shopping for neck braces.

And, it was Jazz Shaw, over at The Moderate Voice, who picked out the money-shot-punchline for this:

And for bonus points, here’s the kicker. She falls into a five foot deep sewer in an accident traumatic enough that she lost one of her shoes in the process. Yet she managed to keep hold of the phone.

There's a new commercial waiting to be screened.

All those Verizon people crammed into the sewer, girl disheveled, only one sneaker on, looking up, through the open manhole to blue skies, shouting "Can you hear me now?" -- the geeky glasses guy giving her a thumbs up.

Might not stop there.

Could be a Darwin or Stella Award in the works ...



(Cross-posted at The Garlic.)

Truth in Comics

By Creature



If it's Sunday, it's Truth in Comics.

AG Holder leaning towards appointing special prosecutor

By Creature

Put me in the I'll-believe-it-when-I-see-it camp. While I don't want to see Obama's agenda stalled, the reality is that the same people who are currently saying no to anything Obama will be the same people up in arms over any decision to look into Bush era crimes. Sure there will be yelling on the TV. Sure we will be subjected to an endless loop of Newt and Liz, but that's about it. It's not like Republicans are playing nice now. If it's a choice between getting yelled at and the rule of law, well, that's not a very hard choice. Is it?

Dick Cheney's abuse of secrecy

By Michael J.W. Stickings

NYT: "Cheney Is Linked to Concealment of C.I.A. Project."

The project, which current CIA director Leon Panetta "ended the program when he first learned of its existence from subordinates on June 23," remains secret:

Intelligence and Congressional officials have said the unidentified program did not involve the C.I.A. interrogation program and did not involve domestic intelligence activities. They have said the program was started by the counterterrorism center at the C.I.A. shortly after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, but never became fully operational, involving planning and some training that took place off and on from 2001 until this year.

What is important here, though, is not what it was -- and one can only imagine -- but that Cheney kept it from Congress. But, in so doing, did he break the law?

The law requires the president to make sure the intelligence committees "are kept fully and currently informed of the intelligence activities of the United States, including any significant anticipated intelligence activity." But the language of the statute, the amended National Security Act of 1947, leaves some leeway for judgment, saying such briefings should be done "to the extent consistent with due regard for the protection from unauthorized disclosure of classified information relating to sensitive intelligence sources and methods or other exceptionally sensitive matters."

In addition, for covert action programs, a particularly secret category in which the role of the United States is hidden, the law says that briefings can be limited to the so-called Gang of Eight, consisting of the Republican and Democratic leaders of both houses of Congress and of their intelligence committees.

So, yes, it's certainly possible that the program was so covert that Cheney acted within the law in keeping it secret. But did the "Gang of Eight" know about it? If not, what was the justification for that? That it was super-covert -- so much so that even the leadership was kept in the dark?

Maybe, and I do respect the need for secrecy, but, given Cheney's track record, we are right to be skeptical:

The disclosure about Mr. Cheney's role in the unidentified C.I.A. program comes a day after an inspector general's report underscored the central role of the former vice president's office in restricting to a small circle of officials knowledge of the National Security Agency's program of eavesdropping without warrants, a degree of secrecy that the report concluded hurt the effectiveness of the counterterrorism surveillance effort.

And there was so much more, of course: "In the eight years of his vice presidency, Mr. Cheney was the Bush administration's most vehement defender of the secrecy of government activities, particularly in the intelligence arena."

Cheney knew what he was doing. And regardless of whatever lame justifications he may have used to defend his actions, he abused the need for secrecy throughout the Bush presidency. As more and more comes out, including this, it is more and more troubling what Bush and Cheney and their various minions authorized in conducting their so-called war on terror.

Top Ten Cloves: Things about new Google Chrome Operating System

By J. Thomas Duffy

News Item: Google developing a PC operating system that would compete with Windows

10. Based on one specific inquiry, Google Chrome OS will work in Argentina

9. Google tried to develop Sarah Palin version, but the OS kept quitting on them

8. May be a delay, in getting your computer to "invite" you to use operating system

7. Other users of Google Chrome OS can use Google Earth to read your computer screen

6. Google Chrome OS will be Twitter-Friendly, so Gmail on it limited to 140 characters, per email

5. Some super application is bound to make its way into the vernacular -- "Can suck the chrome off a Google Operating System"

4. Google Chrome OS is so promising, Senator John Ensign's mother is going to buy it and give to his ex-mistress as a gift

3. With built-in Google Flu Tracker, Chrome OS let's you know when you are sick

2. New feature on boot-up: "I'm Feeling Lucky"

1. To gain market-share, Google issuing a special edition Michael Jackson Chrome OS that will run endlessly and come with automated Diprivan dispenser


Bonus Links

Elise Ackerman: Google's Chrome OS a direct shot across Microsoft's bow

Michael Arrington - Google Chrome: Redefining The Operating System

Joe Trippi: Google announces netbook OS. What next?

MG Siegler: Google Drops A Nuclear Bomb On Microsoft. And It’s Made of Chrome

Google: Introducing the Google Chrome OS




(Cross-posted at The Garlic.)

Another version of "Don't Ask Don't Tell"

By Mustang Bobby

You still can't be openly gay and serve in the United States armed forces, but according to the Southern Poverty Law Center, if you're a white supremacist, no problem.

Evidence continues to mount that current Pentagon policies are inadequate to prevent racial extremists from joining and serving in the armed forces. In recent months, we have found dozens of personal profiles listing “military” as an occupation on a neo-Nazi website. Because the presence of extremists in the armed forces is a serious threat to the safety of the American public, we believe Congressional action is warranted.

This isn't new; as long ago as 2005 the Department of Defense knew that because of low volunteer rates, they had to scrape the bottom of the barrel in order to fill the ranks.

Additionally, as seen in Appendix A, the relatively larger number of message board postings warning new recruits from revealing their extremist group associations exemplifies the presence of both military policy and action to disallow such activities in the Armed Forces. Effectively, the military has a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy pertaining to extremism. If individuals can perform satisfactorily, without making their extremist opinions overt through words or actions that violate policy, reflect poorly on the Armed Forces, or disrupt the effectiveness and order of their units, they are likely to be able to complete their contracts.

As Amanda Terkel points out at Think Progress, "the right wing was apoplectic over the recent Department of Homeland Security report that warned extremists may 'attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans.' This doesn’t mean that all members of the military are racist or likely to sign up with extremist groups. But with more than 12,500 valuable service members discharged since 1994 for nothing more than their sexual orientation, it seems that the military is kicking out the wrong people."

(Cross-posted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

"United Breaks Guitars"

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I'll let Dave Carroll, one (fraternal) half of the Halifax, Nova Scotia-based band Sons of Maxwell, explain what happened (click on the link for a more detailed recap):

In the spring of 2008, Sons of Maxwell were traveling to Nebraska for a one-week tour and my Taylor guitar was witnessed being thrown by United Airlines baggage handlers in Chicago. I discovered later that the $3500 guitar was severely damaged. They didn't deny the experience occurred but for nine months the various people I communicated with put the responsibility for dealing with the damage on everyone other than themselves and finally said they would do nothing to compensate me for my loss. So I promised the last person to finally say "no" to compensation (Ms. Irlweg) that I would write and produce three songs about my experience with United Airlines and make videos for each to be viewed online by anyone in the world. United: Song 1 is the first of those songs. United: Song 2 has been written and video production is underway. United: Song 3 is coming. I promise.

Well, here's #1. It's been a huge success. And deservedly so. (It's a great song/video, and United certainly deserves the bad publicity.)

The Reaction in Review (July 10, 2009)

By Carol Gee

A week's Reactions that deserve a second look,
or: "How Sarah made most all the headlines"

Friday

By J. Thomas Duffy: "Retro Garlic: A doozy ... David Brooks gets creepier" -- There's no easy way to put it folks; David Brooks says a Republican Senator groped his thigh at dinner. See also Michael's "A tale of love, loneliness, and David Brooks's inner thigh."

By Michael J.W. Stickings: "Defending DeMint (sort of, or maybe not -- what he said about pre-war Germany was still incredibly stupid)" -- Michael joins others in an examination of Sen. Jim DeMint's extreme comments about the Obama administration that echo others on the right that "puncture the historical record [of Germany] with their crass partisan propaganda."

By Michael J.W. Stickings: "Smartest Republican of the Day: Mike Murphy" -- Michael is pleased to give credit where due to GOP strategist, Mike Murphy for his Daily News piece on Sarah Palin.


Thursday

By Carol Gee: "The old "he said, she said" again huh? -- This post explores the CIA Director's admission to Congress that it was repeatedly misled, or not told about the intelligence agency's full range of operations. See also, Creature's "Dems press Panetts on CIA's lies."

By Capt. Fogg: "No, Mr. Bond -- I expect you to lie" -- Fogg gives Senator Kit Bond's criticism of President Obama's trip to Moscow the scorn it deserves as a "new and even more precious way to denounce him. . . for not being a messiah."

By Michael J.W. Stickings: "Inside Jeb: Is the smarter Bush brother in line to take over the GOP?" -- Michael reacts to Tucker Carlson's interview of Jeb Bush saying, ". . . Jeb remains a formidable political figure. . . This should concern Democrats, I think -- it certainly concerns me. . ."


Wednesday

By Michael J.W. Stickings: "Palin still popular ... but only with Republicans" -- Michael thinks that Repiublicans should definitely, "Go with Palin. She's your future. Have a nice time in perpetual oblivion."

By Michael J.W. Stickings: "Forget bipartisanship. Democrats need to do what is right on health-care reform." -- Michael's valuable post is an analysis of Sen. Harry Reid's exercise of leadership regarding a public option, and the futility of Democrats continuing to seek bipartisanship at any cost. In the same vein Creature declares, "Today looks a bit brighter."

By Carl: "Sub-burpin' sprawl" -- Carl's beautifully written piece shares the philosophy he's developed over time, in which he contrasts living as a "black hole" with living as a "Flatlander."


Tuesday

By Michael J.W. Stickings: "What the world needs now is not more Sarah Palin; or, how her right-wing admirere are falling all over themselves trying to love her up" -- Michael's written an excellent roundup of "what a few conservatives have said about [Palin] in recent days," adding his own ideas.


Monday

By Michael J.W. Stickings: "It's time for America, a nation of immigrants, to tell Joe the Plumber to fuck off" -- Michael wrote a great post against bigotry, saying, "Americans should tell Joe the Plumber that he's not one of them and that his views are un-American.

By Carl: "Fear is the mindkiller" -- Carl begins, "Rigid thinking and black and white solutions are the mark of children, the small-minded and Republicans," and goes on with a very thought-provoking exploration of unreasoning fears.

By Mustang Bobby: "It's her own fault" -- This great post is a must read, if you want to understand what the real deal is with Sarah Palin. Kudos from all around!


Creature's Money Features -- "Groundhog Day," "Quote of the Day," "Not too big to plan for failure"

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

A tale of love, loneliness, and David Brooks's inner thigh

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Okay, so David Brooks -- you know, the big-shot NYT columnist -- was on MSNBC with Norah O'Donnell and John Harwood earlier today. They were talking about "the dignity code" in Washington, which in a column earlier in the week Brooks wrote has been "completely obliterated," and, among other things, he said this:

You know, all three of us spend a lot of time covering politicians and I don't know about you guys, but in my view, they're all emotional freaks of one sort or another. They're guaranteed to invade your personal space, touch you. I sat next to a Republican senator once at dinner and he had his hand on my inner thigh the whole time. I was like, ehh, get me out of here.

Yeah... what the fuck, right?

Harwood was taken aback and O'Donnell asked who it was. To which Brooks replied:

I'm not telling you, I'm not telling you. But so, a lot of them spend so much time needing people's love and yet they are shooting upwards their whole life, they're not that great in normal human relationships. And so, they're like freaks, they don't know how to, they're lonely. They reach out.

Apparently, they reach out for David Brooks's inner thigh.

Brooks went on to bring up "sloppy women who are licking their aides" -- women in Congress, that is, but he couldn't think of any examples.

His remarks were so bizarre that O'Donnell asked if he'd had "a couple drinks at lunch." "No,: replied, Brooks, he was just "trying not to be too dignified and stuffy."

Okay, but he just revealed publicly that a Republican senator... what? Made a pass at him? Tried to get fresh with him? Hit on him? Near-molested him?

One suspects that this senator doesn't much care for homosexuals and is moralistically anti-gay -- Republicans are like that, after all. And yet he still, uh, warmed up to Brooks. Or was he just being... friendly?

I don't know many men (straight or gay, but certainly not the former) who get friendly by becoming acquainted with another man's inner thigh. Actually, such, uh, familiarity is hardly accepted at all in polite society.

Brooks apparently found the experience uncomforable, and who wouldn't? But imagine a man doing this to a woman. What is harrassment and what isn't? Being a freak, or being lonely, is hardly an acceptable excuse.

Watch the exchange below. It's not something you hear every day. It makes you wonder not just about what's going on up on Capitol Hill but about what's bouncing around in David Brooks's head. (He didn't make it up, did he? No, surely not. But, then, is this sort of thing common?)

Retro Garlic: A doozy ... David Brooks gets creepier

By J. Thomas Duffy

Oh man, this could only have happened on a Friday.

If the Sanford, Ensign, Palin, and Jackson circuses weren't enough for you, than enter, stage right, David Brooks, Rightwing Freak Show columnist for the NYT, seemingly (more on this below), with a bit of a buzz on, being interviewed on cable news.

David Brooks says a Republican senator groped his thigh at a dinner party



Whoa!

A Republican Senator with his hand on David Brooks' inner thigh?

Now, with that specific identification, one name that jumps out first is Larry Craig.

I mean, you can put together little, milquetoast, Wally Cox-like Brooks, either being intimidated, or, perhaps, excited, by big, burly, Larry "Wide-Stance" Craig feeling him up, maybe fantasizing hearing (later, of course) "You bad boy ... You naughty, boy ... You nasty, bad, naughty boy."

John Cole, at Balloon Juice, is hoping that it is "John Kyl or John Cornyn," while Libby Spencer, at her The Impolitic, is having a hard time containing herself -- "It would be irresponsible not to speculate."



And doesn't Brooks seem a bit too giddy?

Even host Nora O'Donnell sensed something amiss:

O’DONNELL: Can I ask one other question David? Do you think, what about female or women politicians? Are they dignified and are there examples of when they have not? Or does it tend to be the men who less dignified?

BROOKS: Yeah, I think that’s mostly a matter of genetics. I do think that…I do think there’s loneliness.

O’DONNELL: That was just a softball, David, and you really hit it very well.

BROOKS: Yeah, I wish I could think of sort of St. Bernards, sloppy women who are licking their aides, but but no, I can’t think of any.

HARWOOD: I’m not going there.

O’DONNELL: Did you have a couple drinks at lunch, David? I mean, this is clearly.

BROOKS: No, you’ve hit me…I’m trying not to be too dignified and stuffy.

Brooks not trying to be "dignified and stuffy" is like Bernie Madoff not trying to hustle clients -- doesn't happen!

And, as you will see, there may be much more to this, as The Garlic had the name "David Brooks" and "creepy" tied together some time ago.

The Retro Part

PBS's Lehrer Admits Brooks "Body Language" Skills "Creeps Me Out" ... Reveals Uncomfortable With Columnist "Staring At Me" On-Set; Alludes "Toe-Tapping" Also Involved

Hmmm ...

Fascination with "body language" ... Another man's hand on his inner thigh ...

I don't know ...

Pretty creepy, there, David Brooks ...



(Cross-posted at The Garlic.)

Defending DeMint (sort of, or maybe not -- what he said about pre-war Germany was still incredibly stupid)

By Michael J.W. Stickings

On Tuesday, Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina, one of the more extreme of Congressional Republicans, said this at the National Press Club:

They understand socialism. They understand tyrants. But none of us have ever had it here. We don't even know what it looks like. Part of what we're trying to do in Saving Freedom [his book] is just show that where we are, we're about where Germany was before World War II where they became a social democracy.

Now, what did he mean by that? To me, it's pretty clear: He was referring not to Nazi Germany but to Weimar Germany, to the socialism before the national socialism. On this, I agree with Ed Kilgore.

Others, however, have not been so generous. Jon Chait, for example, thinks DeMint was comparing Obama's America to Hitler's Germany. So does Chris Orr. And Steve Benen. (Three bloggers I admire a great deal.) In contrast, Matt Yglesias thinks that DeMint is confusing Germany's Nazis and Social Democrats (who opposed the Nazis before the war).

But I don't want to be overly generous myself. I suspect that DeMint knows very little German history, perhaps none at all, and he may just have been mixing everything up. The Obama-is-a-socialist and socialism-is-fascism (and hence Obama-is-a-fascist) memes are big on the right, and DeMint was obviously riffing off that ridiculous connection.

But what I think he was saying -- or, at least, it's how it reads to me -- is that social democracy is a precursor to fascism, just as Nazi Germany replaced Weimar Germany. In this sense, Obama isn't a Nazi but a pre-Nazi -- or something like that.

Of course, this is just as stupid as saying directly that Obama is a fascist. Yglesias is quite right, after all, that the social democrats were not the precursors to but the opponents of Nazism, and they suffered greatly under Hitler. Just because social democracy preceded national socialism, it does not follow that the one became the other, or at least that the one made the other possible. Nazism was not an extension of social democracy but a reaction to it, a rejection of it.

But let's come back to 2009 America.

It is similarly stupid to assert -- and this is currently a popular line on the right -- that Obama is a socialist, or that his agenda amounts to socialism, that, if left unchecked, he and the Democrats will shortly replace capitalism with socialism. If anything, Obama is, like FDR before him, seeking to rescue capitalism from its own excesses, and it will, if he succeeds, emerge stronger for it. If anything, Obama has been too much of a pragmatist and not enough of a reformer. If he has disappointed, it has been because, thus far, he hasn't been nearly progressive enough, not because he has overturned the capitalist order. He sought market solutions to the economic crisis, after all, saving the banks by bailing them out, not by taking them over. Yes, there's General Motors, but the plan there is not for the state to run the auto industry but for the auto industry to pull itself out of the mess it created for itself while the state prevents an all-out collapse. This isn't nationalization, it's a safety net for industry -- even for industries that hardly deserve one.

But no matter. The right -- DeMint et al. -- will continue to puncture the historical record with their crass partisan propaganda. And that means comparing Obama to Hitler, in one way or another.

Good news for Dems: Burris is done

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The Chicago Sun-Times is reporting that corrupt and possibly illegitimate Illinois Senator Roland Burris "has decided NOT to seek election to the seat he fought the government to keep":

Sen. Burris is planning to announce his decision [today] by issuing a statement to the press. But he's reportedly not planning to field any questions from the press.

The decision by Burris was based on his inability to raise campaign funds; campaign disclosures with the Federal Election Commission are expected to be filed next week... and he has reportedly only raised approximately $20,000.

The relief I feel is matched only by my loathing for Burris himself, the Blago appointee who is a personification of a mockery of the democratic system of government. (Put that on your atrocious mausoleum, "Senator.")

Good riddance.

(For our previous Burris coverage, see here.)

Nice parents you've got there, John Ensign

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Politico:

Sen. John Ensign's parents shelled out big bucks to pay off their son's mistress, the latest twist in an unfolding scandal that has upended the political career of the one-time rising GOP star.

*****

On Thursday, Ensign's attorney said that the senator's parents gave Doug Hampton, Cynthia Hampton and their two children gifts worth $96,000 in the form of a check. The attorney, Paul Coggins, said that each gift was limited to $12,000 and "complied with tax rules governing gifts."

Meanwhile, Roll Call:

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) on Thursday said he would not testify in court or before the Ethics Committee about any advice he gave Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) on how to handle his affair with a former staffer, citing constitutional protections for communications during religious counseling, as well as the patient confidentiality privilege.

"I was counseling him as a physician and as an ordained deacon... That is privileged communication that I will never reveal to anybody. Not to the Ethics Committee, not to a court of law, not to anybody," Coburn said.

Coburn repeatedly denied allegations that he urged Ensign to pay Doug Hampton, the husband of his mistress Cynthia, millions in hush money following a confrontation with Hampton. "I categorically deny everything he said," Coburn said.

Good times in the densely populated world of Republican scandal, corruption, and hypocrisy. (And that includes Coburn's bullshit excuse. Yeah, sure he was providing Ensign with medical and religious counsel.)

Smartest Republican of the Day: Mike Murphy

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Sometimes, just sometimes, a Republican says something smart or otherwise does something that is worthy of positive comment, even here at this liberal blog.

So let's start a Smartest Republican of the Day series. There surely won't be as many entries as there are in our Craziest Republican of the Day series, but I think it's only fair to give credit where credit is due.

And, today, I am pleased to say, credit is due to GOP strategist and long-time McCainiac Mike Murphy, who wrote this for the New York Daily News:

Gov. Sarah Palin is the political train wreck that keeps on giving. First, she was an awful choice last year as John McCain's running mate. I came to this conclusion with regret -- I am one of McCain's biggest admirers.

But facts are facts. An inexperienced governor of a small state, she lacked the experience to be President and brought nothing to the ticket except a surefire knack for exciting voters who were already reliably Republican. It was a strategically awful choice, and I said so -- both on and off microphone -- at the time. Most pundits thought I was wrong. Look at the crowds she can draw, I was told. She "excites the base."

Phooey. Every presidential election year brings forth some new nugget of conventional wisdom from the media elite that totally misses the real picture. Last year, the big wrong idea was this notion that base voters have somehow become the new swing voters. We are now told the party base -- those voters who will vote for a bag of cement if it has an R or D attached to it -- must be carefully appealed to, romanced and appeased.

Under that funhouse reasoning, Palin was an inspired pick.

Unfortunately for McCain, the actual swing voters, the independents who do determine the winner of the election, didn't buy into this fantasy at all. After a three-week sniff, most couldn't run away from Palin fast enough.

*****

Other politicians are more reliable conservatives; Palin ran for governor on a set of populist issues usually linked to Alaska Democrats. She lacks any real accomplishment - no military or private-sector career of note, no academic achievement beyond a frenetic bounce between five colleges, including a sun 'n' surf-oriented outfit in Hawaii. She has served only two years as governor of a small and uniquely easy-to-govern state (other governors pine for Alaska's small population and billions of dollars in easy revenue from oil production), a job she has now abandoned.

And so on. The title of the op-ed says it all: "To go forward, GOP must snap out of its Sarah Palin spell."

That's good advice, from a Republican perspective.

As for me, though, I welcome as much Sarah Palin as the Republican Party can handle. The more the merrier. In fact, I encourage Republicans to hitch their "funhouse" wagon to this "train wreck."

Why? Because Murphy is right: "She'll lose, of course, almost certainly the Republican primaries and certainly the general election."

The Republican Party is indeed "demoralized." What could demoralize it more than the annihilation it would suffer with Palin at the helm?