Democracy is flourishing!

This is nice... remember, the US supports this clown (who reputedly likes to boil dissidents)

Maybe he's on the payroll as a consultant for our activities at Abu Ghraib...

Update: We could also go with this under the same title...

Update: Or this, if you prefer a more domestic flavor...

Tactical Victory

But apparently not a strategic one...

Ford flips

Not a resounding statement, but good enough... and pretty quick, just like I thought.

A bit more on stinginess...

Eric Alterman tacks on a few choice words:

Isn't Karl Rove supposed to be this PR genius? How did he blow this opportunity? Put aside for a minute the simple motivation to do what's right, and look at this the way he looks at everything else -- as a PR opportunity. For a billion or so dollars, the Mayberry Machiavelli could have reaped a PR windfall for his boy and the U.S., whose rep in the world has never been lower than it's been the past few years.

I guess if it don't help your guy elected, it don't matter all that much...

Oh, well, another missed opportunity, brought to you by the Crawford gang that can't shoot straight -- unless it's at Democrats.

P.S. Eric, get some permalinks for Pete's sake...

Update: Ezra adds some more:

It boils down to a disgust with the Bush Administration's reliance on hard power and their inability to see the potential of soft power. In some ways, that is the great liberal/conservative divide (though a vast oversimplification). Conservatives believe in America the fighter, America the country with the largest military and the most advanced bombing technology. Liberals believe in America the idea, the America of the Marshall Plan and the Declaration of Independence. And so far as I can tell, the last 30 years have shown that hard America's utility is limited, and often far overstated. So while our strategy of big and ever-sharper sticks has its merits, isn't it about time we gave a carrot-based foreign policy a shot? And didn't this earthquake offer an excellent opportunity to try?

More on being stingy...

The NY Times hits 'em hard...

According to a poll, most Americans believe the United States spends 24 percent of its budget on aid to poor countries; it actually spends well under a quarter of 1 percent.

Bush administration officials help create that perception gap. Fuming at the charge of stinginess, Mr. Powell pointed to disaster relief and said the United States "has given more aid in the last four years than any other nation or combination of nations in the world." But for development aid, America gave $16.2 billion in 2003; the European Union gave $37.1 billion. In 2002, those numbers were $13.2 billion for America, and $29.9 billion for Europe.

Making things worse, we often pledge more money than we actually deliver. Victims of the earthquake in Bam, Iran, a year ago are still living in tents because aid, including ours, has not materialized in the amounts pledged. And back in 2002, Mr. Bush announced his Millennium Challenge account to give African countries development assistance of up to $5 billion a year, but the account has yet to disperse a single dollar.

Israel/Palestine

Shorter Warren Christopher: Hey George, get you ass in there... like, now!

Sweet merciful Jesus...

Just go read.

They aren't even trying to cover it up anymore...

The 12 STI’s of Christmas

This is friggin’ hilarious, even if Christmas is over...

There are always winners and losers...

The LA Times has an article on the budget process that starts with:

For years, government has been about singling out winners for favored treatment in spending and tax policy. That era is about to end — and the change could be painful.

The budget surpluses of 1998 to 2001 enabled Washington to make funds available for such favored causes as domestic security, medical research and prescription drugs under Medicare. The government also slashed taxes for a variety of groups, including two-earner couples and the wealthy.

But the surpluses have turned into record deficits. President Bush is not about to take back his tax cuts, but in setting spending levels in the budget that he will deliver to Congress in the new year, he will single out a loser — perhaps several — for every winner.

But they stop short of proclaiming exactly who the real winners and losers are, even though they pretty much already said it:

"President Bush is not about to take back his tax cuts..."

i.e. the weathly and corporations are the big winners here... who are the losers? The elderly and the poor:

Medicare and Medicaid are prominent on Bush's likely hit list.

-----

Nelson said Medicare's hospital benefits had remained untouched while doctors' reimbursements were constantly threatened."The appearance is that the government is trying to solve Medicare's financial problems on the backs of the
nation's doctors," he said.

The ultimate losers, he said, would be the elderly insured by Medicare. Before Congress reversed the cuts scheduled for 2004 and 2005, he said, a survey
showed that 24% of family doctors would stop taking new Medicare patients if the
cuts held up.

-----

Medicaid supporters — the nation's governors and antipoverty advocates — are using it in an effort to head off an expected proposal to scale back the federal share of the joint federal-state program of health insurance for the poor.

Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA, said cuts were threatening Medicaid's ability to "rise to the occasion when the economy goes sour and more people lose their health insurance."

Got that? The economy goes south, and even though Bush guaranteed us that his tax cuts would be fine even if the economy hit the skids, we start to run a huge deficit. And how do we deal with all this? By cutting programs that are most important during tough economic times, because, ya know, the yachts of the rich are sacrosanct.

The cherry on top? Subterfuge:

Arguing that the costs are only vaguely known, budget writers may also decide not to include the outlays needed to cover the additional costs of the war in Iraq or the transition to proposed private Social Security accounts.

Missile Defense

I made a mention of missile defense (or the lack thereof) in this post... See here for the full measure:

Bush's budget for next year includes $10.7 billion for missile defense—over twice as much money as for any other single weapons system. This summer, he's planning to start deploying the first components of an MD system—six anti-missile missiles in Alaska, four in California, and as many as 20 more, in locations not yet chosen, the following year.

Yet, except by sheer luck, these interceptors will not be able to shoot down enemy missiles. Or, to put it more precisely, Bush is starting to deploy very expensive weapons without the slightest bit of evidence that they have any chance of working.

-----

A missile can hit another missile in mid-air as long as a) the operators know exactly where the target missile has come from and where it's going; b) the target missile is flying at a slower-than-normal speed; c) it's transmitting a special beam that exaggerates its radar signature, thus making it easier to track; d) only one target missile has been launched; and e) the "attack" happens in daylight.

-----

Already, the $10.7 billion that Bush is spending for fiscal year 2005 is more than the entire U.S. Army is spending on research and development. More to the point, it's nearly twice as much as the Department of Homeland Security is spending on customs and border patrol.

"Shortly after 9/11, we were locking up everybody. There was no exception," says recently retired U.S. Border Agent Peter Kush. "We seem to be going back to the same old, same old song and dance."

One Vermont sheriff says border patrol detainees in his jail have dropped 75 percent since April. "I was told kind of unofficially by telephone that the monies had run out," says Franklin County Sheriff Robert Norris.

Indeed, documents obtained by NBC News show that over the last month, illegal immigrants were repeatedly "released due to lack of detention funds."

The Fainthearted Faction

TPM has been working on calling out the representatives and senators who belong to the “Fainthearted Faction” on social security. One of the biggest names on the list is Representative Henry Ford from Tennessee.

This is more than surprising to me… Ford has been considered one of the major up-and-coming young Democrats (and was probably “the guy” before Obama came along).

Does he really want to be on that side of the issue for his future’s sake? My guess is that he folds soon…

Is Friedman intermittently retarded?

This is a bit old, but what the hell...

Not a bad column (not great either), until he gets to this:

We may lose because most Europeans, having been made stupid by their own weakness, would rather see America fail in Iraq than lift a finger for free and fair elections there.

I think Friedman might have been one of those kids in grade school who wanted to hang out with the cool kids so much that he helped them with their homework no matter how often they gave him wedgies or rubbed his face in the snow. There really is no other way to account for his line of thinking that the Europeans would help us on our terms in spite of how poorly we have treated them these past four years.

Let's face it... they aren't going to help because it is not their problem.

Dubya following Rummy’s roll down the polls

The Man of the Year is sliding down the polls… less than two months after the election, he is already below 50% approval rating (first incumbent ever since they have been tracking such things! Congrats!)

Remember that mandate he had? Hmmmm…

Stingy

Oh Jan, why did you have to go and point out a bit of truth?

The administration is howling after the UN's Jan Egeland stepped ever-so-slightly on their footsies with his comment that rich nations are being "stingy" with their aid in response to the tsunami calamity. Powell was immediately on the tube to growl some words (which must have hit hard since he carries so much weight with the UN these days), and Dubya thinks we are a "very generous" nation...

Just how generous would "very generous" be?

Apparently we are only a "very generous" nation when we are shamed into being so...

The Bush administration more than doubled its financial commitment yesterday to provide relief to nations suffering from the Indian Ocean tsunami, amid complaints that the vacationing President Bush has been insensitive to a humanitarian catastrophe of epic proportions.

As the death toll surpassed 50,000 with no sign of abating, the U.S. Agency for International Development added $20 million to an earlier pledge of $15 million to provide relief, and the Pentagon dispatched an aircraft carrier and other military assets to the region.

But really, $35 million is nothing (even if it is essentially a deposit). Hell, we are spending that much on Bush's second inauguration alone:

The estimated budget for the event is $30-40 million, but that will not cover security costs.

Yeah, you read that right... sans security costs. And then there is this:

First, the U.S. Agency for International Development, which distributes foreign aid, will have to ask for more money, since the initial $35 million aid package drained its emergency relief fund, said Andrew Natsios, the agency's administrator.

"We just spent it," Natsios said. "We'll be talking to the (White House) budget office ... what to do at this point."

Even that piddling amount drained our entire budget for this kind of thing. But wait, there's more:

Still, the United Nations' Egeland complained on Monday that each of the richest nations gives less than 1 percent of its gross national product for foreign assistance, and many give 0.1 percent. "It is beyond me why we are so stingy, really," he told reporters.

Among the world's two dozen wealthiest countries, the United States often is among the lowest in donors per capita for official development assistance worldwide, even though the totals are larger. According to the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development of 30 wealthy nations, the United States gives the least -- at 0.14 percent of its gross national product, compared with Norway, which gives the most at 0.92 percent.

Look, it is embarassing that nobody is above one percent, but for the US to be bringing up the rear is downright criminal. But of course the Bushies will try to but a good spin on it:

"That's a European standard, this percentage that's used," Natsios said. "The United States, for 40 years, has never accepted these standards that it should be based on the gross national product. We base it on the actual dollars that we spent."

"The reason is that our gross national product is so enormous. And our growth rates are so much higher than the other wealthy nations."

Don't you understand?!? The reason we can't give more is because we are so flush with cash! It's so simple... Don't you see?!?

I'll tell you what I see... we are spending some $10 billion (that's "billion" with a "b") on a missile defense system that isn't even close to working on the rigged tests we subject it to (and may never work ever), yet we have a hard time mustering $35 million (that's "million" with an "m") for disasters like this.

So spare me your indignant stance when someone rightly points out that we are stingy with our aid.
P.S. Where was all this money and aid when the Darfur genocide started? There are a hell of a lot more lives at stake there as well.

Update: Ezra has some good words as well. What is amazing to me here is that Bush and COmpany are not only being callous about the situation by staying in Crawford and offering peanuts, they are proud about doing so...

Michael Powell’s Payoff

Steve Clemons follows up to his post on Michael Powell (which I referred to here), and asks this question:
What corporate boards is Michael Powell going to be invited on?
This is the standard protocol for this administration, (remember Tom Scully from the prescription drug scam?) and as Clemons points out, the Office of Government Ethics is making it easier to do.

At the beginning of his first term, Bush and many others crowed on and on about how the administration would be run as a business… it has been made abundantly clear that he has done rather well in living up to that assertion, at least in the corruption department. The Bushies appoint folks to regulatory boards from the same industries they now regulate, who then dole out favors from the Bush team in the form of windfall legislation and rulings, and then they all move back into the civilian world and take cushy advisory board roles and lobbying jobs. This is the same political party that vowed it was going to run a squeeky-clean show when it took all those seats in 1994.

This isn’t a government; it’s a revolving door... heck, even the inept joke-of-DC Tom Ridge is going to be making $50k a pop for speech engagements...

The Bush Economy

Glad to hear that things are going well on Wall Street...

Now what about Main Street, USA?

Those Krazy Kool-Aid-Drinkin' Kids...

Check this out...

More travel

On the road going from my parents' house to the in-laws... looks like we might have a stop-over in Redding due to weather.

Posting to re-start soon...

Good lad Tommy...

Thomas Friedman ends his year with a bang...

Strong Dollar vs. Market Forces

Going back to Steve Clemons (along with Jesse Taylor), I wanted to take note of Bush’s perplexing comments on his policy on the dollar:

"The policy of my government is a strong dollar policy," Bush said. "We believe that the market should make the decisions about the relationship between the dollar and the euro."

Does anyone out there think America is pursuing a strong dollar policy?

It seems to me that America has a weak dollar policy that screws Europe, helps some U.S. exporters, but has China with an equally weak currency able to keep American consumers happy with cheap products -- and has Japan scrambling for currency balance.

If Bush is telling the truth -- then why aren't any journalists or commentators challenging him on the fact that his so-called strong dollar policy is failing? Who is getting fired because we have a weak dollar and the president is not getting what he wants?

Up is down, black is white, lies are truth.

Clemons’ points on this are spot on… our policy as Bush would have it does not match up with reality in the least. As I have said so many times before, this is not surprising as it is one of the MO’s of the administration, but that does not make it any less frustrating nor does it make it any less amazing that the press continues to take what he says at face value.

However, I wanted to add my own note on Bush’s comments: if Bush believes in both a strong dollar and market forces, what does he think about the apparent decision by the market that the dollar is relatively weak? I am not an economist, and so I am not going to get into the pros and cons of a weak or strong dollar policy for our country at this point, but that doesn’t mean I don’t wonder about the gulf between what he says he wants and how he thinks it should happen versus what that same mechanism is actually doing.

Remember, this issue has a long and not-so-distinguished history, ranging from his steel tariffs fiasco to his grotesque farm bill and his administration’s positions ranging from catfish to communications...

The Weight of Evidence

From a week email I get called "This is True":

A spokesman for France's Alstom Chantiers, the company that supplied the Queen Mary II cruise liner with its furniture, has admitted it is having to replace many of the chairs on the luxury liner because they're breaking under the weight of fat passengers. "There are some problems with the chairs because some of our passengers are heavier than we imagined," the spokesman says. "It's not an English problem," he hastened to add, since the QMII is a British ship. "It's probably more American."

That's funny, but I thought the more interesting part was this:

Meanwhile, a study by Australia's University of Adelaide has found that the average Australian is heavier than the average American. They found the average Aussie woman wears size 16 and weighs 8 kg (17.6 lbs) more than American women, and the average Aussie man is 3 kg (6.6 lbs) heavier than American men. A doctor for the Australian Medical Association says "we are eating ourselves to death," but University of Adelade Prof. Maciej Henneberg says the "few kilos" of weight is "not a major concern."

Now those weights are not standardized to height in the form of a Body Mass Index (BMI), but it is still a rather telling commentary on their weight problem... and even more telling is their attitude about it (I don't think there are many if any academics here who think the US doesn't have a weight problem).

Culture of Life

More of this sort of thing, please

Side note: DHP’s sis a funny-but-unfortunately-true saying about the beliefs of the pro-life crowd: Life begins at conception and ends at birth. (In other words, pro-lifers are often pro-death penalty, against entitlement programs, and/or for in vitro fertilization)

I have also heard similar bits in the past… for example, when the Catholic Church’s dirty laundry about their priest’s treatment of their alter boys was being aired a couple years ago, I heard a comedian say something to the effect of “The Catholic Priests will fight for your rights in the womb, but once you are on the outside, you’re on your own, kid!”

Merry Christmas from the USA!!!

This is how we do it...

Defending the cross-over dribble...

I often criticize the media (and rightly so IMO), but to do so effectively means you should point out when they do actually seem to get something right... in this case, they didn't go for the Republicans' juke move away from Rummy's singularly horrid performance in front of the troops towards their outcry about how the reporter "manipulated the soldiers" and "inserted himself into the story."

In the past (both distant and recent), when the media dogs started to chase a Republican, the right would throw a bone in the opposite direction and the media would run after it and lose sight of the original objective. But the right's damage control doesn't seem to be working on this one...

Now, there is the issue that Rummy should have been placed in the harsh light of the media for public inspection well prior to this, but we'll leave that to the side for this post...

Side Note: In this week's TIME, the soldier who originally posed the question to Rummy, Thomas "Jerry" Wilson, says that he and the reporter got to be friends, and that the question was his idea (after the reporter urged him to come up with some intelligent queries)... the reporter suggested a less harsh phrasing, but Wilson wanted to make sure he was very clear. He is also a Bush supporter (See? Even if you back the guy, you can still ask questions and criticize... the rules do allow for that...)

Ouch...

Damn… that hurts when Cuba is able to manage a rather effective riposte to the US on the issue of human rights…

More on torture here...

Friday Cat-Blogging

OK, since I didn't get to Cat Blogging last week, there will be a double dose today (It seems like these belated installments are more common than the regular features… however, those of you who know me probably think it is appropriate.)

Anyway, considering that I am in California with my parents right now, I think I would be remiss if I did not include one of their cats. For this installment, I have chosen Rum-Tum. She is a marvelous animal (yeah yeah, we know... Rum-Tum in the musical "Cats" is a male) who likes nothing better than to ride around on your shoulders while purring in your ear to get some occasional head scratching.

Mr. Hugs has his own way of being intrusive on your workday activities... here I am trying to get some... errr... "work"... done on the computer, and Mr. Hugs has assumed his favorite position for computer activities. I can get quite a lot done with him like this, but I do admit that I have to dump him when I play Unreal Tournament 2004 or some other game.

Make-up needed for Senator Coburn!

I agree with Ezra on this… getting Coburn as much TV time as possible is nothing short of a good thing for the Democrats (I don’t know as much about Brownback, but Coburn is one of those people who could give the weirdo loners you went to high school with the creeps).

Sports Note of the Day

Is David Carr the best QB produced by Fresno State? Check this bit out about Billy Volek... quite a nice run!

What to do about Donald?

This “caring fellow” is continuing to slip in the polls…

Aside “why now?” musings on this subject, I have some mixed feelings about the subject… if Rummy is indeed going to be a real political albatross hanging around the neck of this administration, I certainly hope they keep him on. As Senator Levin points out, it’s not like things would magically get better:

"If I thought those policies would change by changing the secretary of defense, I'd be all for it," Levin said on CNN. "But I don't see that that is the ticket to policy changes."

But in thinking this, am I endorsing a sort of scorched earth policy in which I want things to go a bad as they can so the Dems have an opportunity to sweep to power? Close perhaps… I certainly don’t wish ill on the Iraqis or the troops or whoever, but at the same time there is the possibility that switching to a new SecDef will buy the administration some time in the press and public without ever having any positive effects. In other words, I am weighing a short burst of bad results leading to political change in Washington versus a long, slower decline without any good odds that things will get better. Which is the lesser in terms of costs to this nation, its people, and to the Iraqis?

I don’t know for sure, but in the end I don’t think it will matter… I think Bush will keep Rummy on regardless. I think Rove has taken the position that as soon as they get rid of Rummy, they would effectively admit that there are problems in Iraq and that things aren’t as rosy as they say. And admitting they were wrong is something that this administration simply does not do… period.

Amazingly, it seems to work for them to an extent… regardless of the facts on the ground, it serves to cow the media who would have to find the balls to challenge the administration’s assertions. That leads to the wool being kept over the eyes of a great number of the public, and thus keeps public support in line. If they were to can Rummy and admit there was a problem, it would be like throwing a bunch of chum in the water: the media would have an opening they could exploit (no balls required) and the administration would not be able to push other initiatives like social security privatization.

So regardless of my desires (fantastical, pragmatic, or otherwise), I just don’t see it happening…

Smothering the children with love

It looks like Dubya isn’t the only guy who doesn’t seem to learn from his mistakes:

Police said no one was killed in the crush at the party at the former president's house in the village of Qunu, but television footage showed children and their parents toppling a barbed-wire fence and police fighting them back with sticks.

-----

The event was marred two years ago by similar chaotic scenes, when 20,000 people turned up and children were hurt in a stampede that forced security guards to cut down fences.

Ummm… it might be me, but don’t you think there might be a better way to help treat poor kids to a Merry Christmas than by luring them to possible injury, abandonment, and/or death?

O’Lielly Note of the Day

Check out his latest retarded statement...

Unlike someone like Alan Keyes, who I think is certifiable, or Ann Coulter, whose crazy act I think is premeditated and calculated, I really wonder if Bill knows he is lying or if he is just an idiot.

Past time to go, William...

I was thinking about putting together a post on Safire’s latest “effort” prior to his none-to-soon retirement, but I was wondering if it was even worth it… it was just such an amazing bit of nonsense and absurd fantasy wrapped in lies (most of which only he an a few other nutjobs are still pushing) that I didn’t even know if I would be able to untangle the entire mess.

Fortunately, I can provide you with something else in lieu of an analysis:

The Incredible: You know, we never figured out just when Ronald Reagan’s mind started to go and whether he happened to be president at the time. It therefore does not tax my imagination to believe that William Safire is in similar state to that which afflicted Reagan. Sad, really; like when Muhammed Ali fought that kick-boxer…

Thank you Dr. Alterman!

Update: Ezra also weighs in with a couple words...

David Brooks, cart ahead of the horse edition

To read David Brooks, you would think that there was peace in the Middle East right now, that there was a viable Palestinian state, that Israeli wasn’t flaunting multiple UN resolutions and international laws, etc. etc., and that Bush’s disinterested position on the situation was a brilliant masterstroke that led to:

Arafat’s death.

Really folks, the reason there is so much optimism here is that Arafat finally croaked, which will hopefully allow Abbas and others to maneuver without being constantly undermined. It’s really about as simple as that.

But it’s not going to be that simple. Rather than inappropriately assigning credit to people for the current hope, Brooks should be pointing out that a lot needs to be done in order to realize that hope. In particular, Bush has to be engaged in the situation… one of the reasons Abbas wasn’t able to do anything the first time around was that nobody in the US helped him.

I haven’t really seen anything yet that makes me think that it is going to be any different this time around, so calm down there Dave… something has to actually happen before awards are handed out.

The results of “bold leadership”

A follow-up to the TIME’s Man of the Year post… this is the kind of thing I am talking about: bold, decisive actions that are completely killing our standing in the world. Go read…

Please, Mr. Media, do your job! (Holiday Edition)

Greg at The Talent Show has the word…

Apartheid in reverse

Oh for Pete’s sake… gimme a friggin’ break.

(The rest of the post isn’t bad, but it was the bat-shit craziness of the guy’s comparisons that stuck with me and switched my mood to a state of DHP)

The time is now, and that’s too bad

Several bloggers commented on this op-ed piece by Joe Biden regarding the new status of the Israel\Palestine issue… I don’t have much to add, manly because I agree with most of his points (although I personally would be even stronger on the issue of settlements, which I find absolutely criminal).

However, I do have a cynical comment on the way he ends his piece:

The time to act is now.

Yeah, it is… and with this crew in the White House, that’s a damn shame, isn’t it? Kinda like the Iraq War; whether or not you agreed with the move prior to the war, you had to have some serious doubts about this administration’s ability to plan and conduct the war in a proper fashion.

The same sort of idea applies here: there is a great opportunity, but even if the administration actually gets engaged in the issue (something they haven’t really done at all over the past 4 years), you know they are just going to fuck it up anyway, perhaps so badly as to make it intractable again for long into the future.

P.S. Sorry about the f-bomb there Mom, but I found its usage appropriate…

Bush is TIME’s “Man of the Year”

I imagine there will be a lot of crowing by conservatives and some grousing by democrats that Dubya was named as TIME’s Man of the Year (again).

However, before anyone gets too carried away, you have to remember that the label is due to influence that person has had for good or ill. Despite using terms that generally connotate positive characteristics, TIME seems to have a fairly good rationale for their decision: Dubya has “bold leadership” and is “one of the most influential presidents ever.” These are statements that I would generally agree with, as long as you keep in mind that none of these are in and of themselves positive or desirable… you can boldly lead a group of people off the edge of a cliff, and wield a great amount of influence while destroying your own organization. Remember, Hitler was TIME's Man of the Year once as well (no, that is not a direct comparison).

However, the changes in this country as a result of this administration have been apparent for some time… the key to making this distinction at this time is that he was able to get re-elected despite all of his failures (although I would strenuously object with their usage of the term “decisive”). Keeping that in mind, I think TIME selected the wrong guy: they should have gone with Karl Rove. Rove’s strategies of assaulting Kerry on his war record, keeping the economy out of the headlines, and turning out the base with major rightward movements on social issues were often questioned by analysts and had a large effect on our country’s dialectic and self-perception.

We’ll see what the article in that issue has to say when it comes in the mail, but that’s the way I see it at this point…

BTW, TIME also labels the conservative Power Line as its inaugural “Blog of the Year”… considering that they were the Nexis that really pulled apart the CBS Bush TANG story and gave Dan Rather a black eye, I guess that was probably appropriate. Even so, I have some irritation over that for two reasons: first, it was more a take-down of Rather than a take-down of the TANG story (which as a whole is still alive albeit out of the media); and second, it is probably not even the best or most important example of a blog-initiated take-down… that distinction belongs to Josh Marshall and his work which lead to Trent Lott’s resignation from the Senator Majority Leader position. However, that didn’t happen in 2004, so bad luck I guess…

Update: I see that the CNN story removed the “decisive victory” bit from their story… I can’t stand it when they toss stuff down the memory hole in that fashion (even relatively little stuff like this). It’s just not proper journalism.

Update: Kevin Drum has some different reasons for supporting TIME’s decision…

Cynical Governance

Steve Clemons has a post up that is essentially questions why some on the right are starting to mount an anti-Rummy campaign. Clemons gets to the nut of the issue here:

Rumsfeld failed in Abu Ghraib, in Guantanamo, in the invasion of Iraq itself. Show the world that America also has "rule of law" and accountability and remove yourself, Mr. Rumsfeld, since Bush won't do it for you (not unless you become a huge PR liability for him).

But even that -- even dumping Rumsfeld from the Cabinet then -- when he no longer brings popularity even from the most devout on the war-mongering right -- is a crappy
and cynical way to run this government.

American leaders need to do the right things, inspired by conscience and by a sense of the constructive and possible, rather than finally doing the right things (dumping Rummy for instance) when ultimately forced to.

I simply can't imagine the circumstances in which any nations are going to trust our government for years to come. I can imagine some incremental improvements here and there, but only in the most optimistic scenarios which involve dumping the majority of the Bush administration's cast of foreign policy characters. We might have had an opportunity if Rumsfeld had resigned after the Schlesinger Report on Abu Ghraib and
Guantanamo.

Getting rid of Rummy would not be a change based on policy and rooted in accountability based on measurable outcomes and worth; instead, they are simply mounting opposition based on accountability of his political outcomes and worth.

It is certainly not surprising for an administration that runs everything through its political arm and essentially has no policy arm, but that makes it no less disgusting.

Update: More of the same here…

Sure, I agree with Hagel that he should have handled the letters a bit differently, but that’s still a politically embarrassing thing rather than some of substance like the Humvee/Armor issue. However, I will note that Hagel seems to have the big picture right:

Hagel, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said some fellow Republicans have argued that the dispute over Rumsfeld is a matter of style over substance.

"I would suggest that those who believe that, in my party and elsewhere, they better wake up and smell the coffee," he said.

Post shall resume soon...

Posts have been a little light of late… The Wife and I took a lazy day on Friday, and then Saturday was a travel day as I headed to California for the first part of winter break. Posting should resume shortly (including a belatedly Friday Cat-Blogging post…)

Economic Echochamber, errr... Conference

Check out Chait's comments on one singular aspect of Bush's recent "Economic Conference"... sad to say that it appears the entire conference was like this:

And yet here is Feldstein today, dispensing his economic wisdom once again before the most powerful people in the country. Imagine if one man had designed the Titanic and the Hindenburg, and then was put in charge of the space program.

Like I said, sad... but not surprising.

Prison isn't a good place to have a case of the munchies either...

Man, you can't help but laugh at this...

...reminds me of a Drew Carey bit: Marijuana would be legal if the dope smokers didn't forget to vote every year.

Cris Collinsworth sucks

The post was started a long ago, but while the data is old I am still DHP so it gets posted nonetheless.

I was watching the Bears/Cowboys game, and Cris Collinsworth was working the game as a color man along with Troy Aikman. I never realized how much I really hated Collinsworth until today, especially with the comparison available with Aikman. Time and time again, Collinsworth has made inane comments and observations that are right out of the Joe Theismann School of Awful Color Commentary.

While I do like Aikman as knowledgeable and someone who is not afraid to criticize when appropriate, I am left wondering where all the good color commentator are… Joe Theismann and Paul McGuire make me want to kill someone (like, say, Joe and Paul), Madden has turned from entertaining into sad over the past few years, Dan Dierdorf should never have been in the MNF booth, Dan Fouts is simply overwhelmed by the job, etc. It is at the point that it is better to watch the game without the sound on.

Just sayin’…

P.S. How the hell is Jonathan Quinn still drawing a paycheck in the NFL? Hell, I could do better than him… and I’m not kidding: I honestly think I could. You certainly couldn’t do much worse.

P.P.S. I watched the Mavs and Rockets the other night... aside from Dirk and McGrady's shoot-out, I really enjoyed Steve Kerr. Not as polished as the Czar, but he has a lot of potential.

How comforting...

It's good to know that we are paying so much money for a missile defense system which, to put it lightly, doesn't really defend anything... never mind that an ICBM isn't going to be the terrorists' preferred method of attack anyway...

At least it wasn't "Agnus the Trichy Vagina"...

The FCC might be running scared in the wake of Janet Jackson's tit, but I do think they have the right to feel at least a little wary of this...

Endorsing Putin?

Kristof has a new column up where he starts off strong against Putin, but then oddly mellows his attitude towards him at the end:

In effect, Mr. Putin has steered Russia from a dictatorship of the left to a dictatorship of the right (Chinese leaders have done much the same thing). Mussolini, Franco, Pinochet, Park Chung Hee and Putin all emerged in societies suffering from economic and political chaos. All consolidated power in part because they established order and made the trains - or planes - run on time.

That's why Mr. Putin still has 70 percent approval ratings in Russia: he has done well economically, presiding over growth rates of 5 to 10 percent. Polls by the Pew Research Center suggest that Russia is fertile soil for such a Putinocracy: Russians say, by a margin of 70 to 21, that a strong leader can solve their problems better than a democratic form of government.

Still, a fascist Russia is a much better thing than a Communist Russia. Communism was a failed economic system, while Franco's Spain, General Pinochet's Chile and the others generated solid economic growth, a middle class and international contacts - ultimately laying the groundwork for democracy. Eventually we'll see pro-democracy demonstrations in Moscow like those in
Kiev.

We need to engage Russia and encourage economic development to nurture that political evolution - and reduce the risk that Russia, embittered and humiliated, will spiral into the kind of conspiratorial xenophobia found in parts of the Arab world. And, frankly, we need to engage Russia for our own purposes - such as fighting nuclear proliferation. But we also must stay on the
right side of history.

Nicky makes some good points in that nuturing economic institutions and creating a solid middle class is one of the necessary steps one needs to take when assembling a democracy; however, is such a step sufficient, and is a swing to the fascist right necessary for the rise of the middle class prior to a move to democracy?

I would argue no... China is certainly becoming a rising economic power, but the leadership has neatly decided to embrace pseudo-western changes rather than fight them... in doing such, they maintain as tight a grip on power as ever. Additionally, several formerly communist eastern European countries have been progressing well through the various stages of democracy without swinging to a fascist regime.

Finally, there is a question that Kristof dances around but doesn't really address: what about a fascist Russia's effect's on its neighbors and their own democratic institutions? We see some of that in the Ukraine and elsewhere right now of course... we might concede that a rightward swing might be good for Russia itself, but they don't exist in a vacuum: it would wreck havoc on the surrounding countries, and I doubt relations with Washington would continue to be so cozy. Putin is not our guy, and he should have some restrictions placed on him beyond simple "engagement"... unfortunately, Dubya has neither the intelligence nor the will to do it.

Et tu, Bill?

I was wondering were all the outrage was from the right on Rummy's performance in front of the troops recently, and I had feared that it all got soaked up by the mock outrage directed at a reporter cleverly using a GI to a question to the SecDef (more on that in a future post).

However, it seems that at least one shiv is out, courtesy of Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard by way of the WP. Considering that the Weekly Standard is a Murdoch outfit, might we be seeing other NewCorp publications following suit down the road?

Update: Another shiv, this time by the hawkish New Republic. One question though... why now? Rummy's incompetence and arrogance has been on display for all to see for years. Why this politically embarressing episode broke the camel's back is a mystery to me...

Update: Two more... Stormin' Norman and Senator Coleman

Update: Trent Lott steps up to the plate... that's gotta hurt

Just curl your toes and die... have a nice day!

I am not too enamored with stuff like this. I will readily admit that in some cases the medical profession orders too many tests as a result of medical practices that perhaps have not been scientifically challenged of late (indulgence of the rich or defensive medicine are other possible secondary issues). PSH levels for detecting prostate cancer is one example of a particular test that is currently undergoing an evolution.

However, Hadler seems much more like a weird medical libertarian who is trying to show that "they" panic the people into an overt fear of disease... you should just accept it and you will be much happier for it. From my reading of reviews, it doesn't really seem like he is backing up his findings with a lot of epidemiological data (in which, it appears, he is not formally trained)... although I could be wrong, but then again, I am not aware of many studies that would support this position. Avoid mammography and cholesterol screening? There was one study a few years ago that seemed to poo-poo mammography, but it was shot with so many hole it suffered a quick death. This is a *rheumatologist* who thinks osteoporosis and lower back pain is just a natural part of aging... who the hell would want this guy as their doctor?!?

"Well Miss Smith, I see from your DEXA scan that you have worsening osteoporosis. Diagnosis: you're and old lady. Treatment Plan: Get used to it... See ya in a year with a broken hip. Bye now!"

Of course, there is an error in that scenario... he wouldn't have ordered the DEXA in the first place. I mean, there is a reason this is so controversial right? I guess that's the way to a quick buck... get some sort of degree, build a reputation, and then whore your intellectual honesty to make a controversial statement in a book that lacks evidenciary support but sounds populist... kinda like Michelle Malkin (except she didn't even bother with the degree part as far as I know...)

Draft? Naw, we don't need a draft...

I'm certainly not advocating for a draft (not for this monumentally screwed-up war, anyway), but it seems to me that we are starting to scrape the absolute bottom of the barrell: 70 year-olds

Updates

I have added several updates to some of my posts over the past few days, so if you are interested take a second look at my more recent stuff...

Breakin' the rules...

Atrios reminds us of the Rummy Rules for old times sake... however, it looks like there are a slew of new and current appointees (including Rummy) who are breaking a few key rules:

Don't accept the post or stay unless you have an understanding with the president that you're free to tell him what you think "with the bark off" and you have the courage to do it.

The price of being close to the president is delivering bad news. You fail him if you don't tell him the truth. Others won't do it.

You and the White House staff must be and be seen to be above suspicion. Set the right example.

Don't speak ill of your predecessors or successors. You didn't walk in their shoes.

Remember the public trust. Strive to preserve and enhance the integrity of the office of the presidency. Pledge to leave it stronger than when you came.

Be able to resign. It will improve your value to the president and do wonders for your performance. [That's a biggie for Rumsfeld right now...]

Your performance depends on your people. Select the best, train them, and back them. When errors occur, give sharper guidance. If errors persist or if the fit feels wrong, help them move on. The country cannot afford amateur hour in the White House.

You will launch many projects but have time to finish only a few. So think, plan, develop, launch and tap good people to be responsible. Give them authority and hold them accountable. Trying to do too much yourself creates a bottleneck.

Think ahead. Don't let day-to-day operations drive out planning.

A president needs multiple sources of information. Avoid excessively restricting the flow of paper, people, or ideas to the president, though you must watch his time. If you overcontrol, it will be your "regulator" that controls, not his. Only by opening the spigot fairly wide, risking that some of his time may be wasted, can his "regulator" take control.

Don't allow people to be excluded from a meeting or denied an opportunity to express their views because their views differ from the president's views, the views of person who calls the meeting, or your views. The staff system must have integrity and discipline.

When the president is faced with a decision, be sure he has the recommendations of all appropriate people, or that he realizes he does not have their views and is willing to accept the consequence. They will be out of sync, unhappy and less effective if they feel they are or are seen as having been "cut out."

Test ideas in the marketplace. You learn from hearing a range of perspectives. Consultation helps engender the support decisions need to be successfully implemented.

All those, and I only got through about half the editorial... geez...

Runaway (Public) Jury

I have been ragging of late on the lack of some basic tenets of journalism that we have been seeing, but here is an example that shows what the fallout can be. Go read.

(Note that the fuel for this firestorm was provided by FOX, particularly O'Reilly... surprise!)

More Kerik...

...because you know you just can't get enough...

TPM wonders if there ever was a nanny...

Atrios points out that one of Kerik's lovahs has previously been quite the morality cop...

Steve Gilliard has some notes on Kerik's first wife whom he doesn't discuss... probably because it seems like he might have been married to her when he got married to his next wife. Steve also goes off on Kerik, Rudy, and Pataki here...

Delicious Irony (now with 33% less carbs!)

Kilgore on Kerik:

As the unanswered questions about now-abandoned Homeland Security Secretary nominee Bernard Kerik continue to mount, I've stopped thinking about Kerik and started thinking about the rich irony of an administration that can't seem to conduct a competent background check trying to appoint this guy as head of the department whose ability to conduct competent background checks is kind of important to the task of keeping the rest of us alive.

No more comments necessary...

New title holder of "The Worst Cynthia in the USA"

Missouri State Representative Cynthia Davis has just knocked off Cynthia McKinney as the title holder for The Worst Cynthia in the USA:

State Representative Cynthia Davis of Missouri prefiled two bills for the next session of the Legislature that she said "reflect what people want." One would remove the state's requirement that all forms of contraception and their potential health effects be taught in schools, leaving the focus on abstinence. Another would require publishers that sell biology textbooks to Missouri to include at least one chapter with alternative theories to evolution.

"These are common-sense, grass-roots ideas from the people I represent, and I'd be very surprised if a majority of legislators didn't feel they were the right solutions to these problems," Ms. Davis said.

"It's like when the hijackers took over those four planes on Sept. 11 and took people to a place where they didn't want to go," she added. "I think a lot of people feel that liberals have taken our country somewhere we don't want to go. I think a lot more people realize this is our country and we're going to take it back."

"Winnah, and new champeeeen by way of TKO: Cynthia Davis!"

Josh Marshall and Jesse Taylor also comment.

BTW, if you are unfamiliar with McKinney, read this... it may be the NRO, but the author Ed Kilgore is a DLC Democrat. Of course, the title may change hands again: McKinney won back her seat in November...

Is Falwell turning a corner?

Via Media Matters, we see that Jerry Falwell “thanks God” for several conservative media outlets, including the Drudge Report.

Leave aside the joke that Drudge could be considered a media outlet and instead take notice of the fact that Matt Drudge is a gay man… I ain’t judgin’ Drudge, but doesn’t ol’ Jerry take issue with homosexuals?

Does Alan Keyes support Civil Unions?

As my regular readers might know, Alan Keyes made an appearence at UNC to give a speech on behalf of the Federalist Society (the irony of which amuses me to no end).

I ended up skipping the event in favor of The Incredibles and a lil' sumpin' sumpin', but I made it a point to check out the DTH for the coverage of the event. Here is a bit that caught the eyes of my friends and I:

In fielding a question about same-sex marriage, Keyes argued that because homosexual relationships cannot produce children, they "have no inherent public consequence," and therefore no basis for what he termed "public regulation."

"Marriage isn't about rights," Keyes thundered, prompting applause. "The institution of marriage is about responsibilities and obligations."He added that the legal recognition of same-sex marriage threatens to destroy the institution of marriage and the rights of parenthood."We are now trying by legislative means to deprive the family of its authority," he said.

A couple things of note here: if the ability to reproduce is the basis for public consequence and regulation, what about couples that are unable to have children? Should they not be married?What about a married woman who goes through menopause? Is the marriage annulled at that point? What an ass...

However, those lines fall along a familiar path (i.e. that homosexuality is "unnatural'). Of greater interest is the second item: Marriage isn't about rights. Huh... does that mean that he supports civil unions? Civil unions aren't marriages, but rather just a way to empower a particular relationship with a set of public rights and regulations... there is a tacit acknowledgement of that possibility here.

Of course, I don't think he would support such... I just kinda wish I had been there to ask it of him and to see what his tortured logic in reponse would be.

The case against the Death Penalty

Let me say right off the bat that I hate Big Trials That Everyone Is Talking About... I'm sorry for Laci Peterson's fate, but this isn't national news. The only reason it is begin cast as such is because they are both good looking white folk, and it drives me to a DHP state.

Anyway, moving on...

Scott Peterson is getting the death penalty, and in giving their rationale for why they did so the jurors made a pretty good case for getting rid of the death penalty:

The jury's death penalty recommendation surprised some observers, who pointed to the lack of physical evidence tying Peterson to the killings.

But jurors who spoke to the media after Monday's recommendation say the callousness of the crime -- and Peterson's lack of emotion or remorse -- helped to condemn him. (Full story)

"It just seemed to be the appropriate justice for the crime, given the nature and how personal it really was, against his wife and his child," said jury foreman Steve Cardosi.

Juror Richelle Nice, the mother of four children, pointed to Peterson's demeanor.

"No emotion, no anything. That spoke a thousand words," Nice said.

"Scott Peterson was Laci's husband, Conner's daddy -- the one person that should have protected them."

Did you get that? Scott Peterson wasn't sufficiently emotional, so he gets the chair. If, let's say, he had taken some acting classes in college, or perhaps had been in a school play, or had a more savvy lawyer, and he played the role of the grieving husband in order to hoodwink the jury, he might have been better off when it came to sentencing.

What bullshit!

Look, like I said before, I didn't follow the trial (in fact, I had to look up Scott Peterson's first name while writing this because I forgot it) so maybe the guy is guilty as all hell... I don't know. But what I do know is that using a random calculus in order to assign whether or not the guy lives or dies is pathetic... hell, even if a guy *did* know how to act but just happened to react to stress in a particular fashion that the jury found objectionable, then he's screwed (in fact, I have been accused in the past by significant others of being too rational and "cold" in emotional times... but that's part of how I think I handle such stresses).

Another issue here is the implicit idea that if Peterson had killed some poor schmuck instead of his pregnant wife, then that would have not have merited the death penalty ("He was the one person who should have protected them" etc.) What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?!?

The final insult is that despite previous precedents set by similar cases (i.e. lack of physical evidence, etc.), the jurors went for the death penalty... and I haven't even started on the stats showing discrimination in the application of the death penalty, the ridiculous number of overturned cases, the high monetary cost of capital punishment, and the fact that it hasn't been shown to be a deterrent. Perhaps some other post... for now, this is sufficient to keep me DHP.

What an asshole...

Man, I hate Kobe... what a little petulant pissant. Malone decides to make Kobe pay for some poor comments for someone in a leadership position, and then Kobe tries to fight back like a little child who got told he couldn't have any ice cream. Phil Taylor nails him with some bad pub, but I thirst for more...

Seriously, I used to hate Shaq, his retarded interactions with the press, his horrid movies, and his utter lack of interest in shooting free throws much more than Kobe; now, I'm not so sure.

However, I do know that both of them rate at least one T.O. on my hate scale...

Memo to the Media: At least do the basics... please?

Atrios and Kevin Drum point to two sides of the same issue in the media: one see too often, the other not often enough...

Update: Oh boy...

Terrorists watch campy US movies

But will they use sharks as a mobile platform for their "laser" beams?

Bush blows a kiss to the Catholics

Buried by the Kerik story is the nomination of Nicholson for SecVA.

I don't know much about the guy, but given recent political trends that Rove surely wants to strengthen, this looks rather fishy:

Thursday, Bush named Jim Nicholson, U.S. ambassador to the Vatican, as his nominee to replace outgoing Veterans Affairs Secretary Anthony Principi.

"Jim Nicholson is a patriot, a man of deep conviction, who has answered his country's call many times," Bush said of his nominee.

Nicholson has been ambassador to the Holy See in Vatican City since August 2001.

Hmmmm...

I seem to remember that Rummy said that this whole armor thing was about physics; that the plants were operating at capacity... hmmmmm...

Update: Double Hmmmm...

And they lost the ring! They lost the friggin' ring!!!

Man, that's a bad day...

Because they can...

Kevin Drum has a follow-up post on executive compensation that you should read, but I will give you one of the most important points here:

CEOs aren't paid astronomical salaries because of market forces. They're paid astronomical salaries because they can get away with it. That's all.

And that's the way it is with a lot of aspects of capitalism... the right crows about how the left will never be taken seriously on terrorism until such-and-such happens; well, the right should never be taken seriously on the economy until they recognize that some regulation is quite healthy for the market and for our society...

Update: Atrios writes some notes on free trade that are better than what I could ever put together in such a short post (But what do you expect? He's the economist, not me...)

Hey Dubya! You can run, but you can't hide...

Josh Marshall points out that Scottie is trying to push back the meme which states that the Kerik nomination was cavalier and poorly thought out by saying that Kerik's skeletons were known with the exception of the nanny problem (and how would they find out about that?)

But then they run into another dead end... given the fact that his other skeletons were probably way worse than the nanny thing, and that they apparently didn't raise any red flags, I agree with Josh that they look a lot worse off...

Update: Wow, it keeps getting worse... where is the Republican outcry on this? Moral values and all that...

The Olympics are naughty naughty...

You gotta be kiddin' me... (via Atrios and AmericaBlog):

In response to one or more indecency complaints, the Federal Communications Commission has asked NBC to send it tapes of its coverage of the Summer Olympics Opening Ceremonies in Athens, the network confirmed late yesterday.

Ironically, the night before, NBC's Summer Games coverage was named the family-friendliest special of 2004 during WB's broadcast of the sixth annual Family Television Awards. The awards are given by the Family Friendly Programming Forum, a group of 46 major national advertisers working to encourage networks to produce more family-friendly prime-time fare.

This is simply retarded... I don't have much else to give than that.

However, the silver lining is that the writer's tone in the piece is pretty funny... example:

The Opening Ceremonies also included thespians depicting lovers frolicking in the world's largest puddle and a young woman in a shift wading about aimlessly in the same puddle. She appeared to have been impregnated by someone who was radioactive, but we cannot say with certainty whether that was Greek or just weird.

Executive Compensation

Kevin Drum has several good posts up today (one of them is on social security, a subject on which I have been composing a post over the past day or two at a slow pace).

Anyway, one of them is on executive compensation... we all know this problem has been getting way out of hand, but that doesn't mean that there is not new information out there that can surpirse the hell out of you:

....Aggregate top-five compensation was equal to 10 percent of aggregate corporate earnings in 1998-2002, up from 6 percent of aggregate corporate earnings during 1993-1997.

Got that? A full ten percent of corporate earnings go to the top five people in the company. The. Top. Five.

Damn... I mean, DAMN! One has to wonder why this isn't even just a little absurd to the conservatives (Oh wait! I think I know this one... it has something to do with them being the Republican donor base...)

Go read the whole thing...

NC School whitewashes slavery

This is some frightening stuff... not only that a school would know about it, but end up using the damn thing!

Principal Larry Stephenson said the school is only exposing students to different ideas, such as how the South justified slavery. He said the booklet is used because it is hard to find writings that are both sympathetic to the South and explore what the Bible says about slavery.

"You can have two different sides, a Northern perspective and a Southern perspective," he said.

Hey Larry, this isn't really about how the South justified slavery... some things aren't "justified"; people just ignore certain morals and do them without tortured reasoning. And the whole "different perspectives" issue makes me grind my teeth... what, has he been taking classes on the modern media? Sometimes one side's "perspective" isn't worth a cup of warm spit in the face of certain realities.

The weird thing is it's not like this is out in BFNC either... this is in Cary, which is one of the bigger warrens of the professional middle and upper-middle class of RTP. Heck, it's just down the road from where I live!

What the hell is wrong with people?

Update: More here

Yushchenko was poisoned

Link

Over the past few days I had been putting together a post about the possibility that Yushchenko was poisoned prior to the Ukrainian elections. I was really fascinated by the subject (and the Ukrainian phenomenon as a whole), and I was ruminating on what I thought the truth of the matter was.

You see, we hear this kinda junk from all sorts of third-world populists... the Man is trying to keep him down, and will go to any length to silence him. Such dark rumors can help strengthen and spread the populist perception, so there are often motives for this kinda of tripe.

But Yushchenko was another matter... one of the reasons is the stakes involved concerning Russia. This wasn't some little African nation squabble where the guy in power could ruthlessly put his boot on the neck of the populist in order to hold on to some scrap of land and not really fear US involvement... the historic, economic, and military fall-out would have been pretty significant. Plus, a lot of eyes were watching, so something more subtle like the poisoned dagger would have been more appropriate for the situation.

The other reason was pretty obvious: his face is now a mess. If you haven't checked out the link above yet, go look and you will see what I am talking about. Sure, he suffered nerve problems and pancreatitis, but some visual effect is of the upmost importance to get the public to believe.

However, I don't think many people in the west could really bring themselves to believe in it... it is all too James Bondish. I was on the fence as well (hence my fascination for the subject). As a result, I don't think the story got much play in the media in the western countries... I'll wager that most people who knew about the Ukrainian situation didn't have a clue about the possible poisoning.

So what is the fallout from this? I don't think it is going to help him much with the orange revolution camped out in front of the Ukrainian Parliament... those folks are already sold. Who it will help him with are the fence-sitters from the first election who fell to the other side, and probably more than a few Yanukovych supporters who will abandon the guy with this information.

I can't imagine him losing the re-election at this point... this is a clear violation of one of the first rules taught in Bad Guy School: if you are in a dog-fight and are going to try to off the other guy, you'd better make damn sure you kill him. Otherwise, he's going to come back stronger and cause even more problems for you.

Side note: I can't imagine that Putin didn't have a little something to do with this... after all, Kuchma and Yanukovych are his bitches, and the stakes in play here are Russia's to lose. If so, don't you think this represents even more mud on Putin's face? I mean, the guy is ex-KGB for Pete's sake... what sloppy work!

Kerik *is* ker-plunk!

Hey, I am on a roll! First Principi, now Kerik (which I called a few days ago, even if I wasn't specific on the timetable).

The word around the blog campfires is that Kerik had a "Nanny Problem" (which refers to a growing number of nominees, starting with Zoe Baird, that allegedly got pulled because they retained the services of illegal immigrant nannies). This may certainly be the case, but I agree with most of the blogs out there in that there is more to this. Josh Marshall put it best in citing multiple little brewing scandals and thinks that Bush was just not willing to go to the mat for a nominee that wasn't his idea in the first place (a thought that is strengthened in the latest reporting). Kevin Drum agrees, and takes it a step further:

Here's what's amusing: apparently nanny problems are now so common and well accepted that they've become a standard excuse to cover up more serious offenses. Heck, it almost makes you a martyr, since the chattering classes unanimously agree that nanny issues are trivial — it's just so hard to find good help these days — and are used mostly as political payback anyway.

Remember that the next time you think the cops are closing in on you for selling secrets to the Russians or something. Just confess to a nanny problem! Everyone will believe you, the cops will suddenly understand why you've been acting shifty, and you might even get some sympathy in the bargain. It's perfect!

That's pretty funny, but I also find humor in crap like this:

Kerik informed Bush of his decision in a phone call about 8:30 p.m.

The White House later issued a statement saying the president "respects his decision and wishes Commissioner Kerik and his wife, Hala, well."

Translation:

Bush said to Kerik: "Your report stinks like a week-old mackeral left out in the sun... do you want to help a brother out and withdraw on a Friday, or do you want to make it hard on the both of us and do it during the week when the media can really cook us?"

Kerik to Bush: "Uhhhh... Rudy tells me to withdraw now."

Bush to Kerik: "I respect you decision... don't let the Secret Service pummel you on the way out the door."