Bush's Balls Click HERE to Bring Up Full Post

Note: Indecent Content Below the Fold
Click Here or at Permalink to Read More...


If President Bush wanted to pull his ratings and popularity out of the ditch, he could start by following the advice that the Godfather gave to Johnny Fontane when he slapped Johnny across the mouth - "You can act like a man!!"

Bush could stare down the Democrats and waive all executive privilege to get the entire matter of the politicization of the Department of Justice with conservative activists and Republican operatives out in the open. He could command Harrier Miers to go to Capitol Hill to clear this entire mess up. He could then have Rove call Bill Kristol and tell him to make this known as the Bush "Brass Balls Moment" a la the Clinton "Sister Souljah" moment of 14-odd years ago. You know, a cartoon of Bush lecturing the Democratic wimps in a real estate sales office, holding a pair of brass balls "strategically" like Alec Baldwin's character Blake in Glengarry Glen Ross. (NOTE: extreme language in following YouTube clip):



Bush's base would go wild and Kucinich would look like Howdy Doody for filing a motion to impeach.

Bush could but he won't, and his excuses are garbage, just as his explanation of the 33 month sentence for Irving Libby as "excessive" when Libby spent ZERO time in jail was excessive.

He claims he is preserving executive privilege for his successors, but that makes no sense. He could get a promise from the House committee issuing the subpoenas that his waiver would be "without prejudice" as to future presidents' invocations, but that promise would mean nothing. Why? The next Congress can do what it pleases. Similarly, the actions of President Bush in waiving or failing to invoke privilege likewise mean nothing to future presidents. Neither Congress nor Bush is capable of acting with prejudice as to future Congresses or Presidents. The transparency of this claims is patent from Bush's failure to attempt to negotiate with Congress for future presidents' privileges; both Bush and Congress understand that this is a ruse, a faux bauble at which stupid people including the Washington J-School stenographers may gawk.

Since the next president is likely to be a Democrat, one would think that Bush's top priority would not be keeping the post-Nixon executive privilege precedents and customs safely for a Democratic president who will win that office by slamming a wing-tip or high-heel-shaped imprint on Bush's buttocks for the next 16 months. Does Bush really have Obama's back the next time President Obama decides to protect himself from, er, himself? And Hillary?? One thinks that Schadenfreude at their hypothetical future slow roasting would be a more likely result.

If you are male, some other male probably did you a kindness in your early youth by teaching you to block your groin from a punch, kick or missile. If you still have a groin, that teaching is part of the reason that you do still have a "groin" now. If no one taught you, you learned by experience, sorry fella.

Bush is blocking his groin from the boomerangs he threw. Bush is blocking his groin because he knows that his are not made of brass.

Bush Impeachment Bingo Click HERE to Bring Up Full Post

Please enjoy. May be distributed with attribution to Crab Media and www.crablaw.com without limitation or royalty.

Athenae of First Draft: "He has abdicated Government here" Click HERE to Bring Up Full Post

Athenae of First Draft, July 4, 2007:

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the consent of our legislatures. He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation: For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us: For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States: For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world: For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury: For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences: For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies: For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments: For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

In thus manner it continueth. Not every example is four-square and I outright disagree with one of Athenae's grievances in this context. The President does have the right to remove U.S. Attorneys for any reason at all, though Congress is not required to fund any such U.S. Attorney (i.e. Congress can set the salary at a dollar a year or at nothing.) So the removal of U.S. Attorneys for bogus, political reasons and creating a bogus pretext for such removals is not a constitutional issue, per se. But there is a difference between constitutionally tolerable acts and wise ones. And a big difference between telling the truth under oath and committing perjury, no matter what convicted perjurer Irving Libby and discredited Attorney General Alberto Gonzales might wish or suggest.

How far we have gone from the George Washington, the Cincinnatus of Virginia, to George the Least. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Ben Franklin, Thomas Paine, Ethan Allen, Samuel Adams, John Adams - all deeply flawed, ethically compromised men, but the least of them a towering giant over what we've seen in our lifetimes.

We do not get leaders like Washington and Jefferson today because we absolutely do not deserve them. If we had the maturity to demand them, we might find them. But we do not find them. We are too busy watching Paris Hilton endure the moral challenge of serving pissant time on a DWI in California. Not that anything in the Democratic Party comes close either, in my judgment.

Will Bush Pardon Libby, and If So When? Click HERE to Bring Up Full Post

When Ford pardoned Nixon, many speculated that Ford did so out of some quid pro quo deal with Nixon. It is possible that some such deal existed, though Ford denied it. Ford claimed that he pardoned Nixon for the simple reason that he needed to get Watergate out of his metaphorical (and, probably, literal) in-box in the Oval Office to allow other items to enter that in-box. A highly plausible claim to me as I sit at my desk looking at my own physical in-box.

Had Bush not commuted the incarceration element of Irving Lewis "Scooter" Libby's sentence, Bush would not have faced the same in-box nightmare that Ford faced in his near-constant meetings regarding Watergate and Nixon. Both Libby's staunchest supporters and his fiercest antagonists would agree: the Libby matter is not the biggest item in Bush's in-box. At 26% approval according to recent polls, Bush cannot realistically fear a drop in public support from the Libby matter or the partial commutation of sentence. It's hard to imagine Bush becoming less popular; even explosive diarrhea can count on 24% public support.

Bush extended the partial commutation to Libby because Bush needs to reward loyalty in front of other button-men and because needs Libby to have two motivations to remain silent. The first comes from the convenience of avoiding actual testimony through the preservation of a contingent penal interest that keeps the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination applicable. Libby cannot be retried for these offenses under double jeopardy but he remains under the "single" jeopardy of this case so long as the courts have both probationary and appellate jurisdiction over him. Libby's non-commuted sentence of probation means that his circumstances could worsen through a probation violation or, hypothetically, a new trial after appeal with a nastier potential fine or a period of incarceration which George Bush has not commuted. Unlike a pardon, the commutation works only for the sentence actually imposed; a new commutation would be required for any future hypothetical sentence, so Libby can theoretically "see jail" if a Democrat gets elected and sworn in as President before appeal, new trial and disposition in the intervening 550-odd days until January 20, 2009. Libby's sentence can also improve if the appellate courts throw out the case for some reason. Either way, "single" jeopardy is not exhausted for Libby so his right against self-incrimination attaches; Libby will be delighted to exercise it, one can be certain.

The second motivator for Libby to remain silent is that the big "goodie" of a full pardon remains open to him if he plays ball until Bush (or a friendly successor) is out of office. If a Democrat is elected, Bush will probably pardon Libby 20 minutes before attending his successor's inauguration, as Mr. X essentially urged in another recent post, unless Libby completely beats the government before then on appeal, rendering the pardon moot. Bush will do this because Libby's motivation to remain silent will be damaged if Bush doesn't play ball. Convicted felons have a hard time travelling internationally or practicing law and Libby would like to see the world and practice law once he is done with this mess, most likely, though what effect a pardoned crime might have on Libby's law licenses is unclear. Libby's right against self-incrimination won't last forever; better to shorten it slightly through a pardon than risk Libby being pissed at Team Bush's monumental ingratitude. If a Republican is elected, I could see the pardon being held off until the latest practical date, ideally 18 months into the new Republican's term, so as to keep Libby "out of play" by Congress which, by then, might be in different political hands or might be focusing on other issues than those that deep-sea Plameologists find fascinating.

An Open Letter to Talking Points Memo re Joe Willson Click HERE to Bring Up Full Post

Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo, July 3, 2007:

And with that knowledge, I have to say that the claim that Wilson's charges have been discredited, disproved or even meaningfully challenged is simply false. What he said on day one is all true. It's really as simple as that.

Click Here or at Permalink to Read More...

There's a tendency, even among too many people of good faith and good politics, to shy away from asserting and admitting this simple fact because Wilson has either gone on too many TV shows or preened too much in some photo shoot. But that is disreputable and shameful. The entire record of this story has been under a systematic, unfettered and, sadly, largely unresisted attack from the right for four years. Key facts have been buried under an avalanche of misinformation. The then-chairman of the senate intelligence committee made his committee an appendage of the White House and himself the president's bawd and issued a report built on intentional falsehood and misdirection.

No one is perfect. The key dividing line is who's telling the truth and who's lying. Wilson is on the former side, his critics the latter. Everything else is triviality.

Dear TPM:

I respect Josh Marshall, recalling him fairly well from Princeton 15-odd years ago. Marshall has basic credibility with me, in that I have never seen a factual claim made by Marshall (or his staffers) proven false without an admission of that by Marshall. To my knowledge, not once. An 850 credit rating with me.

But Josh, in this post you have put your credibility on the line by calling out as liars those who have accused Wilson of being a liar. You have not stated that those claimants are mistaken, or that they are taking an overly aggressive read on ambiguous facts, or have made logical errors or communicated poorly. You have accused them of deceiving the public and the press with specific intent about Wilson's state of mind and accuracy in his initial statements, i.e the "strong" thesis.

As back-up, you claim yourself as an expert and, essentially, argue from your own authority only – you know that they are liars because you are the expert, therefore we are damn fools if we think otherwise. No links to your primary "ur-posts" in TPM on this topic, no itemization of FireDogLake's take down, etc. Now I believe that you ARE an expert, that you ARE right, that Wilson WAS right and that many of Wilson's accusers ARE liars and all are wrong. But I am a civil libertarian who hates George Bush and Cheney and their right-wing horde of orcs already, so that's not much of an act of faith to ask of me. That's belief, not knowledge on my part. Those who don't have my own liberal anti-Bush bias and my ancient acquaintance with Josh Marshall have no reason to be persuaded.

Just as not every decent soul in 1973 needed to be a hard-core Watergate conspiracy theorist, not everyone needs to be a deep-sea Plameologist. The finer points of the Plame/Wilson/Libby saga have not been my hobby. But if you take a very strong thesis accusing others of being liars, you must bring the back-up with you to retain your own credibility. Otherwise, it looks like irrational and irresponsible exuberance in defense of your admitted "friend" Joe.

Respectfully,


Bruce Godfrey

The Libby Commutation Click HERE to Bring Up Full Post

I have little to say about it except that I expected it. Libby was a button-man for the family boss Cheney, and Bush as titular head of the family had to take care of his button-man, both to keep him quiet and to forestall rebellion from other button-men. Part of the reason for the popularity of The Sopranos came from the fact that the daily news made the plot line seem more real; if Mafia methods work in the White House (omerta, torture, cover stories, bu&&&&&&ing the police, destroying records of communications, corrupt hiring practices, elimination of dissenting voices, even petty theft by high-up button men like morals expert and judicial nominee Claude Allen), surely they can work in suburban Montclair, New Jersey, not just Brooklyn.

The difference, of course, is that on The Sopranos, sometimes people went to jail and came out to a "release from jail party." But Bush had the power to stop a key button-man of President Cheney from going to jail. So he did it, blaming the judge for imposing an "excessive" (i.e. within the guidelines) sentence. Of course, Bush commuted the whole sentence, not just the excess part; cannot have a button-man wearing orange clothes in the Florida Panhandle.

If Bush were decent, he would tell the other button-men to buy Libby a week in Las Vegas, maybe take in a show, a little blackjack, maybe a lap dance or two.

UPDATE: Josh Marshall notes at TPM that with a commutation rather than a pardon, Libby remains under at least theoretical criminal "jeopardy" and can therefore exercise his 5th Amendment self-incrimination privilege. Shrewd.

Booman Tribune: 100 Watergates Click HERE to Bring Up Full Post

I have become so accustomed to criminal disregard for law, due process and clean, competent government from the Bush administration that I fear talking about him, knowing that the monotonous drone of "his entire administration is corrupt" will bore my readers to tears. So I talk about Amy Winehouse's soul singing, transit policy, local issues. How many different ways can one say that every time George Bush gets up out of the Lincoln Bedroom and puts on a suit, he is on the way downstairs to commit corruption, to violate the law, to excrete upon the Constitution, to take care of his boys, to corrode and erode our imperfect but still real distinction in form and substance from a banana republic? Every time 2 or 3 meet in Bush' s name, it appears to be a conspiracy against the law, good governance or due process.

Yet some show better firmitas and industria than I, fortunately; they show up and do their duty. Check out BooMan's 100 Watergates excerpting Henry Waxman's statement regarding the illegal use of the Republican National Committee email server for the conduct of massive amounts of White House business, undoubtedly as a means of defeating both history and law enforcement.

Compared to this, 18 minutes of "lost" tape was a lease law citation.

UPDATE: Maryland Conservatarian says I am "pretty upset" about this - true enough. Do check out his measured counterpoint and exposition on this and related themes.

Bar Associations Of Common-Law Nations Stand Up for Habeas Corpus Click HERE to Bring Up Full Post

From the presidents of the Bar Associations of England and Wales, of Canada and of the United States, an opinion piece in the National Law Journal:

Advocates who suggest we compromise our civil liberties in the name of national security like to think there are no mistakes, no innocents who are being wrongly caught in law enforcement’s net. But such errors do occur, and without review by a fair and impartial court, they cannot be corrected.

The writ of habeas corpus is a pledge we grant to everyone — however accursed in the eyes of society — that even the jailer must answer to a higher authority. As we challenge the depraved threat of terrorism, our three nations must honor and restore a right that helped us emerge from the Middle Ages.

Our nations’ lawyers stand as one in support of habeas corpus.

Modern Welsh law is derived directly from the English common law tradition since Wales' effective annexation to England in the 16th century, unlike Scots law which is closer to the civil law tradition of continental Europe and incorporates a number of different jurisprudential traditions.

HAT TIP to attorney Christy Hardin Smith of Firedoglake, with whom I am of one mind re the following:

It is time that Americans awoke from their cozy slumber and realized that the nation’s liberty is being sold for a false sense of temporary security that isn’t worth the price being paid for it. No more.

I am an American. I am not afraid. And my civil liberties are not yours for the taking.

Talking Points Memo: Ashcroft as Constitution-Defending "Hero" Click HERE to Bring Up Full Post

Steve Benen guest-blogging at Talking Points Memo, May 20, 2007:

James Comey's startling testimony earlier this week stunned much of the political world, but for many of us on the left, there was one point that was particularly hard to digest: in this dramatic tale, John Ashcroft was (gulp) something of a hero.

I did not like John Ashcroft as Attorney General but he was a towering model of both competence and integrity compared to the snivelling, lying hack who now has derailed that office into the basest of partisan hackitude.

There are places in government for feather-bedding, for taking care of your "peeps." As a libertarian, I should theoretically oppose feather-bedding across the board but nobody really gives a damn if you put your buddy in charge of counting the country's grain production for the Ag department or supervising the National Park Service. But the U.S. Attorneys offices are not among the "safely hackable" offices; the crimes are too serious, the damage to morale of career prosecutors too great, the risk of the government violating, not protecting, the legal rights of its citizens too severe, to tolerate hacktastic hiring and especially firing at the U.S. Attorney level.

As it stands, Pat Robertson's Regent University Law School has thrown an amazing number of attorneys into the Bush administration, 150 being the reported number. Now I don't want to be elitist or cruel, but this is business. There are about 2,000 living alumni of this tier 4 school; no tier 5 exists. (Disclosure: my law school Maryland Law is considered tier 2 or very rarely tier 1.) The school is not located in D.C.; the Hampton Roads area of Virginia bordering North Carolina is about as far from Washington as New York City is. So it's not like everybody's interning a subway ride away at the Justice Department between classes and studying at the law library to get their start. Monica Goodling must have had some amazing credentials to get where she got so fast as a young "underboss" in Gonzales' Mafia. I wonder what they were; perhaps she will reveal them in her upcoming Congressional testimony, now protected under an immunity.

I miss Ashcroft.

Josh Marshall on How the Democrats Should Punch Back At The White House Click HERE to Bring Up Full Post

Josh Marshall of TPM Media, April 25, 2007:

Democrats should just hit right back on how President Bush has been helping Osama bin Laden for almost six years. Sounds harsh. But it's true. Consider the facts. President Bush had bin Laden trapped in the mountains of Tora Bora. But he let bin Laden get away because Bush wanted to focus on Saddam Hussein instead. The president and the White House tried to lie about this during the 2004 election. But since then the evidence has become overwhelming. President Bush decided to let bin Laden get away so he could get ready to attack Saddam Hussein. So pretty much anything bin Laden does from here on out is on President Bush. And how about Iraq? President Bush has screwed things up so badly that he's created a whole new generation of recruits for bin Laden. He's created a whole new army for bin Laden. Not by being tough but by being stupid. And by being too much of a coward to admit his mistakes once it was obvious that the occupation of Iraq was helping bin Laden specifically and the jihadist agenda in general.

I have taken a lot of hard shots at Bush of late, impugning his character and that of his administration. But in fairness, I think a lot of this disaster was incompetence and a failure to adjust culturally from the world of screwing up businesses to the world of screwing up governments, armies and diplomatic standing of a world power, rather than bad faith.

Laura Bush: No One Suffers More than George Bush Regarding the Iraq War Click HERE to Bring Up Full Post

Joe Sudbay of AMERICABlog.com, April 25, 2007:

Listen, you Americans, Laura Bush wants you to know the President is suffering over Iraq. In fact, Laura told Anne Curry on the Today Show, that the American people need to know that "no one suffers more than their President and I do." No one? She's as delusional as her husband. Of course, her husband is the person who caused the suffering -- and is the one person who can end it.

Video of Interview with Mrs. Bush is at AMERICABlog.









I have a hard time seeing George W. Bush exclaiming Eli, eli, lama sabachthani from the midst of his Crawford, Texas brush clearing duties. Then again, he is a Purple Heart recipient as of this week for extraordinary bravery and heroism under criticism from commentators so maybe I am showing disrespect to the injuries that he suffered. It may be hard for him, with so many of his closest allies under investigation, subpoena, indictment or residence in the least attractive federal housing projects.

I reproach myself for having been so restrained in my criticism of the President and his administration of late; this lassitude represents a character flaw of mine, that of laziness and a lack of firmitas and industria, which I will endeavor to improve, through a greater focus of criticism upon these narcissistic criminals.

UPDATE: clammyc of Booman Tribune said it better than I did.

Copperas Cove Herald: Bush to Receive Purple Heart Click HERE to Bring Up Full Post

Copperas Cove (TX) Herald, April 19, 2007 (HAT TIP to Crooks and Liars):

Bill and Georgia Thomas reported they were elated Monday when they met in the Oval Office with President George W. Bush to present him with a Purple Heart.

"We were just absolutely bowled over. Without reservation, it was one of the highlights of our life. He was such a gracious host," Thomas said. "It was just an incredible, incredible experience."

The couple was able to meet with President Bush for about 20 minutes to present him with one of three Purple Hearts that Bill Thomas received during his service in Vietnam.

"He said he didn't feel like he had earned it," Thomas said, noting the president looked thinner in person than on television.

Thomas said he and his wife came up with the unprecedented idea to present the president with the Purple Heart over breakfast one morning a few months ago as they discussed the verbal attacks, both foreign and domestic [Emphasis Crablaw], the commander in chief has withstood during his time in office.

"We feel like emotional wounds and scars are as hard to carry as physical wounds," Thomas said.

If Bush had any class, he would have thanked Mr. Thomas, invited him to the White House, shaken his hand and encouraged him to donate his Purple Heart to the Smithsonian Institution or to a public school in his community. Or to sell it on eBay and donate the funds to a rehab center to provide career training and PT for amputee veterans of Mr. Bush's Mesopotamian foreign policy disaster. But NEVER, NEVER to accept a medal he did not earn, even as a token of friendship. This is horrible. And the Republicans have the nerve to accuse Democrats of ruining morale among the troops?

But Bush needs a photo op, and that's what this undoubtedly Republican Texan has probably been propped up to give him. It's important that Enemies of the State make this backfire on him.

Let me get this straight: when you are in public office and get criticized for your multitude of horrific screw-ups by political opponents, journalists, commentators and foreign heads of state, that's like getting shot in the testicles or losing a foot. Or an eye. The reward is apparently the same: a Purple Heart.

As the son of a Vietnam Vet who was returned stateside on medical after contracting the local virulent form of pneumonia there, and who received no Purple Heart for his foreign service performed, hazards faced and sufferings borne, I cannot begin to describe in clean English my complete and utter contempt for this miserable, corrupt and insufferably awful excuse for a President.

I am deeply ashamed that he is my countryman, let alone President. A better country would not tolerate this.

George W. Bush on Atheist Americans, Easter, 2002 Click HERE to Bring Up Full Post

From the Radio Address of President George W. Bush, Easter 2002:

Americans practice different faiths in churches, synagogues, mosques and temples. And many good people practice no faith at all.

Thank you, Mr. President.

AP: George Bush To Address American Atheists Next Sunday Click HERE to Bring Up Full Post

AP via Boston Globe, March 31, 2007:

In an unprecedented and highly controversial move for an American president, President Bush has announced that he will address the American Atheist convention in Seattle on April 8.

Deputy Press Secretary Sharonda Jefferson, standing in for Tony Snow during his period of treatment for a recurrence of cancer, made the announcement in an informal briefing on Air Force One. "President Bush is interested in representing all Americans, including those whose religious or non-religious views are not identical to his own well-known evangelical Christian beliefs. He views this as an excellent start to a continuing dialogue with an isolated sector of American society whose views are not often heard in the halls of Congress or, to our demerit, in the West Wing."

Ellen Johnson, President of American Atheists, welcomed the participation of the President. "We are delighted that the President of the United States will be addressing our community and hope that he will be open to understanding the civil rights and social concerns that we have regarding the growth of theocratic tendencies in his party and elsewhere in American society."

Evangelical leaders expressed their support as well President Bush's appearance in Seattle on Easter Sunday. "While we view American Atheists as a hive of hell-bound destroyers of our entire culture, nation and way of life, perhaps President Bush will be able to do his part as a Christian to lead a few of those bees away from an eternity in a hell-bound hive," noted Dr. James Dobson, President of Focus on the Family.

The Reverend Jerry Falwell, now a Unitarian minister at Mother Sophia Reason Unitarian Church in Lynchburg, Virginia (previously reported by Crablaw last year), expressed enthusiastic support for Bush's outreach. "I am so thrilled that President Bush will be supporting us athe-, er, liberal religionists by meeting with American Atheists on "Reasoned Reflection and Equality Sunday" as our faith calls it. President Bush would be most welcome at our non-discriminatory services. We hope someday he will drop by."

Washington insiders have noted that strategist Karl Rove recommended the visit in order to shore up lagging approval numbers. Reaction to this strategy has been mixed in Washington, with some calling it a bold stroke to reach an underrepresented constituency ahead of the Democrats for 2008, while others view it as a strategy to back up a health-based reason for resignation from office by both Rove and Bush himself.

New York Times: Australian to Serve 9 Months in Jail, 1 Year in Silence Click HERE to Bring Up Full Post

NYT, March 31, 2007:

David Hicks, the Australian high-school dropout whose detention became an international issue, will serve nine more months in custody, most of it in Australia, under the terms of a plea deal unsealed here Friday.

...

The deal included a statement by Mr. Hicks that he “has never been illegally treated” while a captive, despite claims of beatings he had made in the past. It also included a promise not to pursue suits over the treatment he received while in detention and “not to communicate in any way with the media” for a year.

Critics said those requirements were a continuation of what they say has been a pattern of illegal detention policies. “It is a modern cutting out of his tongue,” said Michael Ratner, president of the Center for Constitutional Rights, a legal advocacy group, based in New York, that is coordinating the representation of detainees in many suits challenging Guantánamo detention.

This is all about the Bush Administration covering its political rear end. Either he needs to stay in prison forever, or he should be released and be at liberty to speak to the media every hour for the rest of his life. They don't want him to sue or to talk, because what the government did to him and what he would have to say about it would embarrass the Republican Party. After all, if he had no case and nothing damaging to say, the Pentagon would not have bothered to negotiate for those concessions.

If someone can show me why I am wrong on these points, please do.

Bed Time for Gonzo? Click HERE to Bring Up Full Post

I actually feel bad for my conservative and Republican counterparts. They deserve better than what they are getting of late from their party and the President. Conservatives, at their finest, are thrifty, practical and competent.

Talking Points Memo, owned and managed by my fellow Princeton 1991 graduate Josh Marshall, has been all over this story, and has gotten justified credit from ink-and-paper media for its detailed coverage.

Does Team Bush's brazenness know any bounds?

DottieboBottie: "Dear Mr. President:" Click HERE to Bring Up Full Post

My suggested alternative title: "3rd Finger, 1st Amendment." HAT TIP to Majikthise, whose talent both for taking and finding great photography continues to impress me.

Many thanks for reproduction permission to photographer Dottie Guy, whose extensive work can be seen here and here.

As a child, I was taught once never to stick my tongue out at the President of the United States, but that giving him the finger was sometimes acceptable or even required.

A Rapid Recovery to Mrs. Bush Click HERE to Bring Up Full Post

From Breitbart, December 18, 2006:

First lady Laura Bush had a skin cancer tumor removed from her right shin in early November. The procedure was not disclosed until Monday night. The cancer was identified as a squamous cell carcinoma, a malignant tumor that is the second most common form of skin cancer.

Explaining why the procedure was not disclosed until now, the first lady's press secretary Susan Whitson said, "This medical procedure was a private matter for Mrs. Bush, but when asked by the media today, we answered the question."

...

Whitson said Mrs. Bush's tumor was removed under a local anesthetic. She called it "a little surgical procedure. It's no big deal. She detected it early. She caught it early." No further treatment was needed.

While the story sounds as if the medical procedure was a relative minor matter, Crablaw wishes to Mrs. Bush a full and rapid recovery, which may indeed be occurring or have occurred by this date.

New Haven Advocate: Voting for Bush, Severe Mental Illness Linked Click HERE to Bring Up Full Post

From the New Haven Advocate, November 23, 2006:

Lohse, a social work master’s student at Southern Connecticut State University, says he has proven what many progressives have probably suspected for years: a direct link between mental illness and support for President Bush.

Lohse says his study is no joke. The thesis draws on a survey of 69 psychiatric outpatients in three Connecticut locations during the 2004 presidential election. Lohse’s study, backed by SCSU Psychology professor Jaak Rakfeldt and statistician Misty Ginacola, found a correlation between the severity of a person’s psychosis and their preferences for president: The more psychotic the voter, the more likely they were to vote for Bush.

...

“Our study shows that psychotic patients prefer an authoritative leader,” Lohse says. “If your world is very mixed up, there’s something very comforting about someone telling you, ‘This is how it’s going to be.’”

While this hypothesis might tend to explain this:



it does a inadequate job of explaining this: