The wording of your latest Quick Poll is quite the cop out.  I especially like how you threw "perceived" in before "blunders".

The reason Libby is arguing he was put forth as a sacrificial pawn to protect Rove is so that the defense can impeach the prosecution's witnesses on their alleged motive to lie to protect Rove.  The also need an alternate narrative.  You can't win by just poking holes in the prosecution's case, you have to present a believable theory as to why the facts are as they are.  Unless you are O.J., of course.

Any chance you guys exercise your amazing "bipartisan" powers and get this minimum wage bill through the Senate?  Last I looked a minimum wage increase had far more popular support than any of the divisive and extremely conservative judicial nominees the President put forward last year, so this should be a no-brainer.

Sen. Lieberman is now attacking bipartisanship in the Senate.  For years he's argued the Senate is too "partisan", but now that the plan for escalation in Iraq is creating a growing bipartisan opposition to the war, its suddenly time to step back and not go there.  Hey Joe, make up your mind!

Wow, looks like Scooter's defense is that he was chosen as a "sacrificial lamb" by the White House in order to protect Karl Rove.  Meanwhile it appears Libby learned of Plame's identity from his boss and destroyed notes that detailed Vice President Cheney's deep involvement in the Plame leak and pushback against Joe Wilson.  Big surprise, right?  

This only goes to show Lynn Cheney was half right when she said it didn't reflect well on the judicial system that a man like Scooter Libby was on trial; what she meant to say was it would reflect better if her husband was on trial.

I get the feeling that somewhere out there Dick Cheney is reading this LA Times article about no clear evidence of Iranian advanced weapons technology in the hands of Iraqi insurgents and saying to himself that it clearly bolsters the case for going after the Iranians.  Maybe we'll hear a line about it in the State of Union address or something?

Bush in free fall at 28%.

This summer is going to be long and hot here in Washington, D.C.  I can't wait.

I heard this on the news this morning and I gotta say I'm with Daniel Gross in asking why wouldn't increased demand for corn from both the ethanol and livestock industries lead American farmers to increase the amount of corn acreage in order to meet that demand?  Or are they saying in the short-term American farmers and imported corn are unable to meet skyrocketing corn demand which will cause some economic dislocation among livestock growers (smaller herds) and the meat-packing industry (one processing plant closed?) until things shake themselves out later? 

Now, I know not liking the President and his policy in Iraq can get you kicked out of the jury pool for the Scooter Libby trial, but why would it get you kicked off of a Qantas airline flight?

(h/t Americablog)

What do this story about the 2006 NIE estimate still not being ready and this story about the audacious insurgent raid on an American military compound in Karbala have in common?  They are both attempts to forestall bad news that might lose the White House's "new Iraq strategy" even more support. 

What, you say you can understand that they don't want anyone to see how bad the NIE estimates are but why Karbala?  Why does this bode ill for the upcoming "surge"? 

Look at it this way, the raid in Karbala looks bad for one because a number of American servicemen died and it suggests that insurgents are even more sophisticated than we've been lead to believe, after all they had American uniforms and spoke "some English", but the implication of the news reports is that the killers definitely had inside help.  From whom? well probably members of the Iraqi Army and police forces, the same guys we will be relying on to be out front pacifying Baghdad.  Its one of the only ways of reading the fact that these guys exclusively targeted and killed Americans and Iraqi security forces watched them run off without intervening. 

It's definitely a double whammy so I suggest you'll see much more made of the fact that the insurgents are really tricky as opposed to the fact the Iraqi military isn't entirely trustworthy.

In the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll, 51% of Americans strongly disapprove of the president's performance in office.  Wow.  Those are terrible numbers.  Nearly Nixonian.

If you'd ever wondered why our public discourse on the issues of the day seems so ridiculously retarded then I recommend Howard Fineman's latest piece because it explains a lot about how members of our elite press corp view the country's political process.  Fineman moves away from the old "horse race" analysis to the new "high school musical" analysis which basically says that the political process is typified by all the unbearable stereotypes that so annoyed you in high school. 

In effect, that political process is juvenile and unserious and you really shouldn't give a damn because you're screwed either way. This especially holds if we're only talking about the 2008 Democratic Primary, because I gotta tell ya I have a hard time seeing Fineman give John McCain the kind of send up he does Al Gore, ie. "... the ultimate goody-goody but who had grown a beard, made a film and dropped out to attend the School Without Walls".  

Dirty hippy or beatnik references seem a little dated to me but hey, I don't work for GE/NBC/Newsweek nor do I get paid for juvenile crap like this... kinda what you'd expect from say, the annoying editor of your high school yearbook.

(h/t Kevin Drum)

And Big Pharma isn't interested in funding the research trials because they can't make enormous profits off of the potential cure?

I don't know what will happen or whether DCA will be the next medical breakthrough but I think this is just wrong on so many levels.  For an industry already heavily subsidized by you and I through exorbitant drug prices that  fall heaviest on American consumers, a large dose of federally subsidized drug research and a broken patent system that encourages the production of "me-to" drugs over actual innovation, you'd think that ponying up for an inexpensive cure would at the least be a good PR move, but evidently no.  Mr. Michelakis will hopefully find government funding for his research but don't expect to see commercials for DCA anytime soon. 

I could be wrong but it seems that a couple years ago when the NSA's secret warrantless wiretapping program was suddenly made public, any calls that it be brought into compliance with current law was tantamount to aiding our enemies in the destruction of the United State of America.  Going to a FISA court, even if several days or weeks after taking action, was too slow; the President already had the power to order domestic spying and anything else dangerously impeded our global war against terrorism, dammit! 

Okay, so what happened that made them suddenly say that the NSA program will now be regulated by the FISA courts?  I'm confused...have we lost the GWOT or something?  Judicial review....OH, THE HORROR!

Although it is not clear what's happening there are a lot of moves being made by the White House on the Judiciary front that seem to signal that they are going on the defensive.  Why, you say?  Well first we had Harriet Miers resigning as White House Counsel and her replacement by Nixon and Reagan administration veteran, Fred Fielding, someone with a lot more experience managing congressional oversight and scandal. 

Next, and possibly the most serious change, is the removal of a number of prominent U.S. attorneys many of who were overseeing investigations of a number of top Republican lawmakers and their associates.  Worst of all those attorneys were replaced without Senate authorization with the White House choosing a little known provision in the USA Patriot Act to ram the changes through.  Needless to say, many of the new appointees are long on political loyalty to the President and short on legal or courtroom experience. 

To add to the mess, Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, is suddenly on a rampage giving speeches about the evils of "judicial activism".    I could be wrong but trotting out well-worn stale political rhetoric about the judiciary as some sort of preemptive defense is just lame.  Better arguments could be made that Presidents should never pick their long time political patrons/personal lawyers as Attorney General.

Any of you lawyers, notice any other trends out there?

"... for the first time in my life, Mr. Oreo cookie- without the chocolate on the outside- can understand why people celebrated when O.J. Simpson was acquitted."  What? 

Glenn Beck must be filling out some sort of new conservative media commentator quota at CNN and ABC because I can't fathom how someone with such an amazing penchant for wacko inflammatory statements has stayed on the air so long.  What we have here is someone who loves the sound of his own voice and one of the more annoyingly asinine new faces on television, but a leading cultural commentator with with a distinct voice.... ah, no. 

I leave you with Jon Stewart's astute assessment of Beck after he challenged the patriotism of new Rep. Keith Ellison:

 Finally, a guy who says what people who aren't thinking are thinking! 

Now, if that's what the networks were going for, then they've got the right guy!

How unpopular has George W. Bush become?  Extremely.  Mr. Bush has hit that point that he is so unpopular that the more we see him or hear from him, the farther his numbers go down. 

The White House political office has to be bumming because you know all the lead up to last week's speech was an attempt to make the President more visible and relevant after the drubbing his party took in the midterms, which frankly can also be laid at the feet of Mr. Bush. 

Someone's going to have to retire that, "The President remains popular" refrain because when your number have been below 50% as long as W's (over a year and a half) they rarely come up significantly and more often then not sink lower.  Good thing the White House doesn't place much faith in polling.

The folks over at Huffington Post did a run-down of President Bush's 60 Minute interview and found that he got stuck on the word "decisions", as in "I like making decisions."  Sadly, Scott Pelley could not move himself to tell the President that while he got a way too much credit for "liking to make decisions" maybe four years ago, more recently people have come to realize his decision-making ability pretty well sucks and wish he would stop.

Shorter David Brooks:  "Damn the Democrats for not coming up with a "serious" alternative plan that the White House would definitely ignore, because now we're stuck with the Bush plan.  Let me show you how we got here...."

There have to be other ways to try to puff up your middle-brow conservative credentials than saying this crap over and over again.

Christ, what a disaster.  He's only been back a short while and the damage caused is already starting to pile up.  And the funny thing is that Joe Lieberman is such an arrogant elitist prick that he thinks everything he says and does is somehow saving the country from itself. 

Any chance the people of Connecticut will revisit and rethink their choice of Senator sometime in the near future?  Please??

I know the White House never worries about these things, but you'd think they'd be a little concerned now that the President isn't even getting applause giving his "let's go kick some terrorist ass" speech on military bases? 

  Serious 1. a. Of persons, their actions, etc.: Having, involving, expressing, or arising from earnest purpose or thought; of grave or solemn disposition or intention; having depth or solidity of character, not light or superficial; now often, concerned with the grave and earnest sides of life as opposed to amusement or pleasure-seeking.

Okay, there are several definitions of "serious" but I get majorly confused when its applied to the current situation in Iraq.  I was particularly taken aback when I watched the Brooks and Shields segment on the News Hour last night and David Brooks emphatically declared that the Democrats did not have a "serious" alternative plan for Iraq so they basically needed to find one or support the President.  When asked why the Democrats had to come up with a proposal given they have no power to implement any sort of policy or strategy, he answered, "Because they are Americans." 

Now I don't know about David Brooks but it seems to me that there are a lot of alternative proposals out there: the Iraqi Study Group proposal, federalizing Iraq or dividing it into three different countries, strategic redeployment of forces, etc.  There are a ton of alternate proposals out there but no notion of what makes them "serious" or "not serious" according to David Brooks and other conservative commentators.  I suggest that saying a proposal is not "serious" has less to do with whether or not it works or was conceived in all earnestness and more to do with whether or not you agree with the proposal.  For years despite thousands of position papers and plans put out by Democratic politicians or liberal/progressive think tanks on any number of issues the refrain was the Democrats had "no plan", but now that they hold the House and Senate, they suddenly have "no serious plans."  Make sense? 

An alternate explanation is that to be "serious" means the willingness to needlessly risk the lives of thousands over and over again with little actual hope of making a difference in an already failed policy situation.  I personally think this is what Brooks and others mean when they use the word "serious" and suggest that most of the rest of us would use a different word: insane.

When Johah Goldberg says "not long ago", I think he means two to three years ago.  I don't know if I consider Jonah a "big picture" kinda guy but if he's talking about the entire sweep of human history, then I guess technically he's correct?  Man, how time flies....

If Bob Novak is to be believed (risky proposition), even Republicans in Congress admit that Condoleeza Rice's mismanagement of the State Department has effectively crippled American diplomacy in a number of areas.  No word yet as to whether this influenced our "new strategy" in Iraq.  Sorry to everyone hoping for some sort of diplomatic magic in the Middle East. 

A couple days ago I mocked all the faux outrage generated by the announcement that Congress would work a couple four day weeks in a row.  This of course ran counter to the House Democrat's pledge to work five days a week and apparently the media got a good snicker out of the report that the House Leadership called off Monday's session because of the BCS national championship game.  I didn't think this was so earth-shattering seeing as Congress has only been putting in two day work weeks for several years now, but now apparently the whole story is a load of crap. 

Turns out that despite some bad jokes from Majority Leader Hoyer to the contrary, no sessions were scheduled for Monday so that House members of both parties could study all the legislation that will come up this week.  Hoyer said as much on the floor of the Congress last week and Nancy "What's the BCS mean?" Pelosi confirmed it during statements made to the media on Monday.  Evidently it only took a phone call to straighten it all out so its amazing how this story had legs earlier in the week. 

After years of bills rushed to the floor in the middle of the night containing provisions not originally voted on in committee, a better story would have probably been the new phenomenon of the House Leadership actually giving members time to read the bills they'll be voting on.

Want a laundry list of why most people aren't too excited about Mr. Bush's "new strategy" then check out the this transcript from Keith Olbermann from last night. 

Olbermann: President Bush makes no secret of his distaste for looking backward, for assessing past results. 

But in our third story on the Countdown tonight… too bad.

Any meaningful assessment of the president's next step in Iraq must consider his steps and missteps so far.

So, let's look at the record:

Before Mr. Bush was elected, he said he was no nation-builder; nation-building was wrong for America.

Now, he says it is vital for America.

He said he would never put U.S. troops under foreign control. Today, U.S. troops observe Iraqi restrictions.

He told us about WMDs. Mobile labs. Secret sources. Aluminum tubing. Yellow-cake.

He has told us the war is necessary…Because Saddam was a threat; Because of 9/11; Osama bin Laden; al Qaeda; Because of terrorism in general; To liberate Iraq; To spread freedom; To spread democracy; To keep the oil out of the hands of terrorist-controlled states; Because this was a guy who tried to kill his dad.

In pushing for and prosecuting this war, he passed on chances to get Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Muqtada al-Sadr, Osama bin Laden.

He sent in fewer troops than recommended. He disbanded the Iraqi Army, and "de-Baathified" the government. He short-changed Iraqi training.

He did not plan for widespread looting, nor the explosion of sectarian violence.

He sent in troops without life-saving equipment.

Gave jobs to foreign contractors, not the Iraqis.

Staffed U-S positions there, based on partisanship, not professionalism.

We learned that "America had prevailed", "Mission Accomplished", the resistance was in its "last throes".

He has said more troops were not necessary, and more troops are necessary, and that it's up to the generals, and removed some of the generals who said more troops would be necessary.

He told us of turning points: The fall of Baghdad, the death of Uday and Qusay, the capture of Saddam, a provisional government,the trial of Saddam, a charter, a constitution, an Iraqi government, ¤elections, purple fingers, a new government, the death of Saddam.

We would be greeted as liberators, with flowers.

As they stood up–we would stand down, we would stay the course, we were never 'stay the course',

The enemy was al Qaeda, was foreigners, terrorists, Baathists.

The war would pay for itself, it would cost 1-point-7 billion dollars, 100 billion, 400 billion, half a trillion dollars.

And after all of that, today it is his credibility versus that of generals, diplomats, allies, Republicans, Democrats, the Iraq Study Group, past presidents, voters last November, and the majority of the American people.

(h/t Crooks and Liars)