Recently in Rudy Giuliani Category

Y'know, after watching Wednesday's RNC festivities, I'm rather annoyed with myself that I titled the post about Tuesday night "Chimps on Parade." I mean, the dismayingly chimpy Dubya notwithstanding, at least Fred Thompson can sometimes muster up the ornery menace of an aging silverback. But it was last night's warm-up act, with also-rans Romney, Huckabee, and Giuliani sneering and snarling with abandon at Obama, "liberals," the "elite media," the home television audience, and just about everything else that crossed their path, that felt like the real flying monkey attack.

Now, I can't say I have my finger on the pulse of the nation or anything, but, in terms of the sheer quantity of vitriol, last night's flurry of bad mojo felt quite a bit to me like Pat Buchanan's disastrous 1992 "Culture War" speech all over again. (The fur flew so thick last night that even the AP felt compelled to mention the blatant untruths today.) We'll see how it plays over the next few days and weeks, of course, but I get a strong sense that the Republicans didn't help their cause much at all last night. (And, if you were to happen to infer that, by calling that ridiculous trio of GOP Pep Boys "flying monkeys," I was implicitly comparing Gov. Palin, who later dripped with similar derision and contempt from her unfortunate sea of black, to Margaret Hamilton, well, that's all on you...sexist.)

At any rate, to, take 'em in their miniboss order...

Mitt Romney: "Is a Supreme Court liberal or conservative that awards Guantanamo terrorists with Constitutional rights?" This one's easy...Douchebag. [Transcript.] Is there anything else one needs to say about the man? It wasn't so long ago even the GOP was united in their dislike of the guy's patent insincerity. But last night, of course, Republicans hooted and hollered through his manifestly idiotic remarks about a "liberal Washington" like he was Don Rickles killing at the Palms. "Is government spending -- excluding inflation -- liberal or conservative if it doubles since 1980? — It's liberal!" Of course, self-proclaimed conservatives, and darlings of everybody in that room last night, have run the White House for twenty of those twenty-eight years...but you already knew that. "It's time for the party of big ideas, not the party of Big Brother!" Uh...I guess Mitt hasn't been following the news all that much of late, nor did he seem to pre-read his own speech. (See the first quoted sentence above.) I could go on, but you get the point: Douchebag. Let's move on.

Mike Huckabee: "John McCain will follow the fanatics to their caves in Pakistan or to the gates of hell. What Obama wants to do is give them a place setting at the table." Alright, I feel a bit bad for lumping in Huckaboom with the rest of the night's speakers. [Transcript.] He's clearly a smarter, abler politician than 95% of the Republicans out there (even if his weird anecdote about veterans and desks barely made a lick of sense), and his remarks wisely eschewed most of the angry invective that marked all of the other speeches. (His early nod to Obama's candidacy -- "Party or politics aside, we celebrate this milestone because it elevates our country" -- went over like a lead balloon in the auditorium last night.) Still, even with his friendly, aw-shucks demeanor, Huckabee laid on the finger-pointing pretty thick at times, particularly once he set his sights upon the "elite media, whose "reporting of the past few days has proven tackier than a costume change at a Madonna concert."

Governor Huck probably trod onto the thinnest ice last night when he tried to portray the GOP as the "real" party of poor folk and ordinary working joes. This is wildly implausible for many reasons, not the least because Huckabee himself deemed the Republicans "a wholly-owned subsidiary of Wall Street and the corporations" only a few short months ago. Plus, it's really hard to buy into this sort of "broke-like-us" tripe when Cindy McCain is wearing $300,000 of bling to the big show.

Rudy Giuliani: "For four days in Denver and for the past 18 months, Democrats have been afraid to use the words 'Islamic terrorism.' During their convention, the Democrats rarely mentioned the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001." 9/11, 9/11, 9/11? Mayor Rudy 9iu11iani, it seems, is not above living down to his caricature. Of the three Pep Boy speeches, this is the one that will probably be remembered as the biggest misfire for the GOP. [Transcript.] Even if Romney's was more intellectually dishonest as written, Giuliani's shrill anti-Obama screed was emphatically the most poorly delivered. (Not that Giuliani scrimped on the intellectual dishonesty. See, for example, his resurrection of the hoary "present vote" meme.) For whatever reason -- some say pique at his speech being moved -- Giuliani came across as even more weaselly and intemperate than usual last night, and -- I say this as someone who, despite everything since, gave him much credit for his original handling of 9/11 -- Rudy seems weaselly and intemperate on the best of days. In any case, however much it may have fired up the faithful, Hizzoner's rant didn't play at all on TV. (While I'm linking TPM, Josh Marshall got off a great zinger last night: "I think I preferred this speech in the original German.")

And then the main event, Governor Palin. [Transcript.]

Over the past few days, I've refrained from posting every single revelation about the seemingly un-vetted Palin here, partly because I think little is gained by poring over the details of the awkward baby-momma story (even if the hypocrisy of the family values crowd has been stunning), and partly because keeping up with every facet of her creepy-craziness would've consumed the entire week. (If the Enquirer affair story gets locked down next week, that might well get a post here, tho' -- as did Edwards' indiscretions. Also, a PSA for any kids who happen to stop by -- watch what you write on your MySpace page, y'all. That's one to grow on.)

So, how did Palin attempt to distract us, however briefly, from the fact that she's an unqualified, uninformed, scandal-ridden, pro-life, creationist, secessionist, wolf-massacring, book-banning Buchananite fundie? Well, mainly by channeling Rush Limbaugh for forty minutes: "When the cloud of rhetoric has passed, when the roar of the crowd fades away, when the stadium lights go out and those styrofoam Greek columns are hauled back to some studio lot. When that happens, what exactly is our opponent's plan? What does he actually seek to accomplish after he's done turning back the waters and healing the planet? The answer -- the answer is to make government bigger and take more of your money and give you more orders from Washington and to reduce the strength of America in a dangerous world." Uh, yeah. 1988 called...they want their talking points back.

I wish there was more to Palin's coming-out address to recommend it, but 99.44% of her speech was just this sort of smarmy, deeply-negative, over-the-top ridicule for Obama-Biden, delivered for the sole purpose of firing up the tired remnants of the fringe right. (Another case in point: "My fellow citizens, the American presidency is not supposed to be a journey of personal discovery.") Even elements of her biography that I somewhat respect were grossly mismanaged. True, being the cleanest Republican politician in Alaska is kinda like being the world's tallest pygmy -- and, as noted above, Palin's hands aren't all that clean anyway. But, still, I'd have respected the Governor more this morning if she hadn't openly lied to us last night about her reform credentials. ("I told the Congress 'thanks, but no thanks' on that bridge to nowhere." -- I believe Peggy Noonan has an apt phrase for this kind of blatant falsifcation. For shame.)

Update: "Obama was working for a group of churches that were concerned about their parishioners...They hired Obama to help those stunned people recover and get the services they needed --job training, help with housing and so forth --from the local government. It was, dare I say it, the Lord's work -- the sort of mission Jesus preached (as opposed to the war in Iraq, which Palin described as a 'task from God.') This is what Palin and Giuliani were mocking. They were making fun of a young man's decision 'to serve a cause greater than himself,' in the words of John McCain. They were, therefore, mocking one of their candidate's favorite messages." By way of DYFL, TIME's Joe Klein angrily rallies to the defense of community organizers.

"We ran a [9/11] campaign that was [9/11] uplifting. The responsibility of [9/11] leadership doesn't end with a single [9/11] campaign. If you believe in a cause [9/11], it goes on and you continue to fight for [9/11] it, and we will." Apparently, 9/11 nostalgia doesn't extend into the sixth borough....Florida also marked the end of the road for Rudy Giuliani (or Rudy 9iu11iani, as he's sometimes known.) The mayor is expected to endorse John McCain tomorrow. Can't say I'm sorry to see him go, although the prospects of Giuliani as McCain's AG are sorta frightening in their own right.

So, the debates.

Of course, every big show has an opening act, and the undercard tonight was the Republicans. I realize I've been slipping on the GOP coverage around these parts of late, and I apologize...I promise to catch up once the Dem side quiets down (As a show of good faith: hey, look! Romney won Cheney country.) Still, part of the reason I've been losing interest in the GOP's internecine disputes this cycle is because -- even notwithstanding the moldering albatross that is Dubya -- their candidates are all so lousy, and everyone knows it. (The Iowa attendance numbers, where the Dems outnumbered Republicans 2-1, tell most of the story.) Still, my main impressions of the GOP side tonight were thus:

Another slew of Iowa/NH polls, most of which suggest that, as per the norm, turnout will be the key: ABC News/Wash Post has Obama up by four in the Hawkeye State: Obama 33%, Clinton 29%, Edwards 20%. But a new InsiderAdvantage poll says Iowa is Edwards' to win, with the NC Senator pulling 30% to Clinton and Obama's 26% and 24% respectively. (This latter poll -- by a Republican firm -- has been called into question as an outlier. And speaking of elephants, the elephant in the room at the moment, of course, is the Enquirer's sordid and dubious "grandson of a millworker" story, which Drudge frontlined last night. But thus far it's not getting the traction in the mainstream press one's come to expect from the bimbo eruptions of the Bill Clinton era. Let's hope it stays that way.) Update: Iowa Poll #3: Clinton 30%, Obama 28%, Edwards 26%. "Clinton is the favorite of women, older voters, liberals and those making less than $50,000 a year. Obama has an edge among moderates and younger voters; Edwards does best in union households and among married voters." Two weeks to go...

On the national front, a FOX/Wash Times/Rasmussen poll (and consider the source) finds Hillary Clinton leads the nation in "anti"-votes, with 40 percent of Americans saying they'd vote for her opponent in the general election just to keep her out of office. (Second was Giuliani, with 17%. Obama had 11%, Edwards 2%.) Still, Clinton's prospects look brighter in the Granite State, where a new poll puts her back up 12 over Obama, 38% to 26%. (Edwards comes in third at 14%) "Clinton gained some 7 percentage points over last week's poll, with Obama losing 4 percentage points. 'Nearly all of Clinton's gains come among older voters.'" An 11-point bounce for Clinton in a slow news week? Looks like Shaheen-gate paid dividends for her candidacy after all (although some say it's the weather.) Still, despite Clinton's Boomer boom, NH remains up in the air: "A whopping 65 percent of poll respondents who identify themselves as likely Democratic voters, however, said they have not made a definite decision on their vote."

"Nor would I separate us from our religious heritage. Perhaps the most important question to ask a person of faith who seeks a political office, is this: does he share these American values: the equality of human kind, the obligation to serve one another, and a steadfast commitment to liberty?" Well, Governor Romney, that's the question. I was busy the day of the "Big Speech," so I ended up watching some of it on Youtube [2, 3] and reading the rest online. And, while I'd definitely quibble with the notion that "Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom," it seems Mitt waited too long to pander to the evangelicals regardless: Huckabee's doubled up on him -- and everybody else -- in Iowa, and is now running second nationally behind Giuliani. And, as Drudge dredged up this morning, Huckabee has been doling out red meat to scary religious conservatives for well over a decade now, including recommending the quarantining of AIDS patients in 1992. Even though Romney will say pretty much anything, It'll be hard for the Governor to catch up with that kind of crazy, especially if he expects to remain at all electable.

Another new poll, by way of the Des Moines Register, puts Obama slightly in the Iowa lead at 28%, to Clinton's 25% and Edwards' 23%. (All candidates are within the margin of error of 4.4 percentage points.) Also, it seems Obama may well have cut deeply into Clinton's impressive support among Iowa women: "In the new poll, Obama leads with support from 31 percent of women likely attend the caucuses, compared to 26 percent for Clinton. In October, Clinton was the preferred candidate of 34 percent of women caucusgoers, compared to 21 percent for Obama" Still, Clinton maintains her generational ace in the hole: "Clinton is the top choice among caucusgoers 55 years old and older. The largest share of Democratic caucusgoers -- exactly half -- are in this age group." Meanwhile, on the GOP side, Mike Huckabee leads Mitt Romney 29%-24%, with no one else even close. "That's a gain of 17 percentage points since the last Iowa Poll was taken in early October, when Huckabee trailed both Romney and Fred Thompson." We have a ways to go yet, but it's looking like we've got ourselves a barnburner on both sides of the aisle, and I'm obviously pleased as punch that Obama is not only in the running but leading the pack. Onward and upward.

Update: "Now the fun part starts"? Sensing the obvious danger to her candidacy in Obama's Iowa lead, Hillary Clinton announces she's going negative, and illustrates thus by insinuating Obama has character issues. “'I want a long term relationship,' she said. 'I don’t want to just have a one night stand with all of you.'"

"In almost every appearance as he campaigns for the Republican presidential nomination, Rudolph W. Giuliani cites a fusillade of statistics and facts to make his arguments about his successes in running New York City and the merits of his views...All of these statements are incomplete, exaggerated or just plain wrong." The vagaries of the simmering "Schtup-gate" (so coined by Salon's Joan Walsh) and Qatargate controversies aside, it seems the Giuliani campaign suffers from an even more basic problem: Its candidate just makes up numbers as he sees fit. "'He’s given us a lot of work up until now,' said Brooks Jackson, the director of Annenberg Political Fact Check, which is part of Factcheck.org, a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania that has corrected statements by candidates in both parties."

Meanwhile, on the GOP side: The Republican field shores up its right-wing cred as Moral Majority co-founder Paul Weyrich endorses Mitt Romney, well-known evangelical crazy Pat Robertson backs Rudy Giuliani, and failed presidential candidate Sam Brownback, who I really thought would fill the conservative spoiler role now enjoyed by Mike Huckabee, instead decides to get behind John McCain. Looks like it's still anybody's race over there, even with NH polls currently breaking Romney's way.

There' s no mandate for Rudy or Romney just yet...In keeping with the strong support for none of the above discovered earlier this year, a new poll finds the Republican nomination is more up for grabs than it's been in almost thirty years. "Not since 1979 has the leading Republican candidate had less than 40 percent support in national polls in the November heading into an election year."

"In making this selection, I think President Bush has made a very...deliberate effort to choose someone who would not be controversial," Sidestepping the political firestorm a Ted Olsen nod would have unleashed, Dubya chooses retired judge Michael B. Mukasey to be Gonzales' replacement at the Justice Department. While conservative, particularly on national security issues, Mukasey is "'not an ideologue for the sake of being an ideologue,' said Andrew Ruffino, a former law clerk of the nominee's. Said Bruce Ackerman, a Yale law professor who was a classmate of Mukasey's: 'He is not a hyper-charged Federalist Society type. He is not a glad-hand networker.'" (He does, on the other hand, have strong ties to Rudy Giuliani.)

"'Democrats are reasonably comfortable with the range of choices. The Democratic attitude is that three or four of these guys would be fine,' David Redlawsk, a University of Iowa political scientist. 'The Republicans don't have that; particularly among the conservatives there's a real split. They just don't see candidates who reflect their interests and who they also view as viable.'" Currently leading the Republican race for President: "none of the above." I wholeheartedly agree.

"Giuliani's Escape from New York was already tough enough, but Mayor Mike makes it nearly impossible. Bloomberg is the Ghost of Rudy Past -- a constant, high-profile reminder of the cultural distance from the South Carolina lowlands to the New York island." Slate's Bruce Reed examines how Mike Bloomberg's recent flirtations with a presidential bid spell serious trouble for the Giuliani candidacy (as does -- according to Fred Kaplan -- Rudy's "greedy" behavior with the Iraq Study Group.)

Is this it? Is this all you can conjure, Republicans? Perhaps it was because I was feeling mighty under the weather when catching up with it on TiVo, but last Thursday's GOP debate was more than a little underwhelming. Of the top tier, Mitt Romney probably acquitted himself the best: He seemed a bit blow-dried and canned, sure, but we were at the Reagan library, after all, and he didn't do anything to hurt his standing as a front-runner with money to burn. Frankly, John McCain's act seemed stale to me: The "Gates of Hell" notwithstanding, he seemed to possess little-to-none of the from-the-gut, truth-to-power charisma that propelled him through 2000. (And his pained, convoluted stance on Iraq -- everything got screwed up for years but now we're hunky-dory -- doesn't make a lick of sense.) Rudy Giuliani proved once again that he's a better candidate in theory than in practice, and I don't see his half-hearted shrug over Roe V. Wade playing too well to the conservative cheap seats. (Let's not forget, three of these ten folks -- Brownback, Huckabee, Tancredo -- wouldn't even admit to believing in evolution.) Speaking of which, Mike Huckabee and Sam Brownback seemed like the two among the rest with the best shot to jump up a notch, particularly as either could conceivably become the favorite son of the Dobson wing of the party. Ron Paul's ardent libertarianism was a surprising X-factor in the debate, and I thought it was kinda fun to have him around. (He also came across better, IMO, than the Dem's official monkey wrench, Mike Gravel.) Jim Gilmore, Tommy Thompson, Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter? Meh. If I were Fred Thompson, I wouldn't be dissuaded from a run by this lot. I mean, the GOP field already looks like one of those WaMu ads with the gang of disgruntled bankers (Indeed, an Obama-and-GOP Youtube remix seems inevitable) -- why not add one more to the mix?

Probably the most telling fact of the evening was the dog that didn't bark: Dubya. Watching these ten prominent Republicans squirm and equivocate every time anyone mentioned the president and his current policies tells you everything you need to know about 2008 -- After eight years of GOP mismanagement and corruption, the election is the Dems to lose.

"'A Democratic candidate could go out there and muck it up and raise questions about his or her competence or judgment,' says Andy Kohut, director of the non-partisan Pew Research Center. 'But the landscape really is tilted in a Democratic direction.'" In USA Today, Susan Page lists five reasons why 2008 is looking Democratic. But, don't tell these guys: The Republicans go at it tonight at the Reagan Presidential Library, 8pm, MSNBC.

"Americans are acutely aware of our problems, and their patience is at an end for politicians who value incumbency over principle, and for partisanship that is less a contest of ideas than an uncivil brawl over the spoils of power. I want my presidency to be an opportunity -- an opportunity to fix what we all know needs to be fixed. I'm running for president of the United States; not yesterday's country; not a defeated country; not a bankrupt country; not a timid and frightened country. I'm running for president of the United States, a blessed country, a proud country, a hopeful country, the most powerful and prosperous country and the greatest force for good on earth. And when I'm president, I intend to keep it so."

With an eye on Giuliani and a nod to Reagan's "Morning in America," John McCain officially announces his candidacy for president. Well, McCain is -- usually -- good on the question of getting money out of politics, which I still consider to be arguably the most important domestic issue in America, and the one that prevents real, pragmatic solutions from occurring on dozens of other issues, from health care to economic policy to alleviating child poverty. But, let's face it: McCain has proven time and time again by this point that his vaunted reputation for independence is a press-driven ruse, and that he'll fall behind the Dubya line when even slightly leaned upon. The line that keeps coming back to mind when I think of the Senator from Arizona, and I've used it before here, is Senator George Norris' description of the equally reputed maverick William Borah: He only "shoots until he sees the whites of their eyes." That seems to be John McCain in a nutshell, and it's been a long time since he's done anything to prove that sentiment wrong.

"If one of them gets elected, it sounds to me like we're going on the defense. We've got a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. We're going to wave the white flag there. We're going to try to cut back on the Patriot Act. We're going to cut back on electronic surveillance. We're going to cut back on interrogation. We're going to cut back, cut back, cut back, and we'll be back in our pre-September 11 mentality of being on defense." Meanwhile in related news, Rudy Giuliani lapses into aggro fearmonger mode to try to shore up his right-wing cred. That accompanying giant sucking sound you might hear is all of Hizzoner's legitimately-earned but now hopelessly squandered Churchillian cred going right out the window...He seems to have reverted to his true colors much earlier than I anticipated. Said Barack Obama, correctly, of Rudy's pathetic stunt, "[Giuliani has] taken the politics of fear to a new low...We know we can win this war based on shared purpose, not the same divisive politics that question your patriotism if you dare to question failed policies that have made us less secure. The threat we face is real, and deserves better than to be the punchline of another political attack." Touche.

"'We tried to explain to the folks in Boston early on that it's a little different here,' says Terry Sullivan, a veteran political operative who is running former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney's presidential campaign in the Palmetto State. 'It's kind of a knife fight.'" Meanwhile, right down the road in my home state, the Republicans already seem to be fighting in the gutter, as Salon's Michael Scherer reports. "'The person who wins the South Carolina primary generally becomes the nominee,' explained South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham...'It's a test of a red state. It will be a real test of strength among conservatives in general. So you have to have your best game on.'"

"The government may use its voice and its regulatory authority to show its profound respect for the life within the woman." In keeping with a tendency to move right incrementally, without necessarily overturning any laws (one that may also pose trouble for the McCain-Feingold act in coming weeks), the Roberts Court upholds a ban against partial-birth abortion 5-4, with Justice Anthony Kennedy the swing vote. (He was joined, of course, by Justices Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito.) Kennedy's reasoning? According to Slate's always-perceptive Dahlia Lithwick, it was fear of the Inconstant Woman: "Today's holding is a strange reworking of Taming of the Shrew, with Kennedy playing an all-knowing Baptista to a nation of fickle Biancas." For her part, Senator Barbara Boxer sadly summed it up as such: "'It confirms that elections have consequences,'...alluding to Bush's re-election and the seven GOP Senate wins in 2004 which set the stage for the appointment of Roberts and Alito."

With that in mind, all the major candidates for 2008 obviously weighed in on the decision in Gonzales v. Carhart, although everyone pretty much followed to party script, even the ostensibly pro-choice Giuliani. [Clinton | Edwards | Giuliani | McCain | Obama | Richardson | Romney] "Wednesday's ruling raises the stakes for the 2008 presidential election, which is almost certain to pit an abortion-rights Democrat against an anti-abortion Republican." Let's not make the same mistake again, y'all.

Some more fallout (and, in my opinion, auspicious signs) from the first money primary held recently: Hillary Clinton may have more in the bank, but Barack Obama raised more money, has more cap room to spare, so to speak, and has been peeling off some top Clinton donors to back his own efforts. "A list of Mr. Obama's top fund-raisers released Sunday showed the extent to which the Democratic Party establishment, once presumed to back Mrs. Clinton, has become more fragmented and drifted into her rival's camp, lending the early stages of the Democratic primary campaign the feeling of a family feud." Update: In related news, a new poll shows the race tightening on both sides. Clinton's up only eight on Obama, Giuliani has six on McCain (pending GOP reinforcements such as Fred Thompson.)

Yes, folks, this is how we choose a president in this country: Grab that cash with both hands and make a stash. The first primary is effectively over, and Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney lead the begging and scraping for loot at $26 and $21 million respectively. On the GOP side, Rudy came in second at $15 million, with McCain trailing at third with $12.5 million. Meanwhile, for the Dems: John Edwards has $14 million, Bill Richardson $6 million, Chris Dodd $4 million, and Joe Biden a clean, articulate $3 million. Still obviously missing, Barack Obama, who is rumored to be up around the 20 mark. While I hate to indulge this stupid financing system, I hope it's something like that, as I'm still rooting for he or Edwards over Sen. Clinton in the primary, and the Clinton money machine is, without a doubt, a sleek, well-oiled contraption. Update: Make that $25 million for Obama.

Former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani gets one step closer to officially joining the presidential fray. Good luck in those primaries, bub...My guess is his post-9/11 Churchillian cachet won't do much to prevent his being eaten alive by the gay-and-immigrant-despising fringe-right.

"Our troops in Iraq have fought bravely. They have done everything we have asked them to do. Where mistakes have been made, the responsibility rests with me." I'm still furiously playing catch-up, so I'm obviously a day or two behind on blogging this...Then again, Dubya's just as obviously three or four years behind in announcing it, so I'll call it a wash. Nonetheless, after finally admitting that his administration has seriously screwed up in Iraq, Bush --- sidestepping the suggestions of the Baker-Hamilton commission -- calls for sending 21,500 more troops to the region, in what's being billed as a "surge." (Re: "escalation.") When you get right down to it, Dubya's basic argument in his televised address on Wednesday was this: "Through wishful thinking and outright incompetence, I've dug two nations into a huge hole. Please, please, please let me keep digging..."

Here's the thing -- A massive troop increase would've made a good deal of sense in 2003, during those crucial days just after the fall of the Hussein regime. A show of power then -- and a quicker restoration of order and basic services -- would have paid huge dividends down the road. But, now, all these years later, after so much infrastructure has been destroyed and so many sectarian schisms have been allowed to fester? 21,500 troops -- many of them not fresh recruits but wearied soldiers returning to the region or having their tours extended -- isn't going to make a dent in the Whack-a-Mole game we've been playing against insurgents since 2003. At best, this escalation is a show of good faith to the al-Maliki government, which seems to be not much more than a brittle political arm of Shiite extremists (Exhibit A: the manner of Saddam's hanging; Exhibit B: the refusal to do anything -- until now -- to rein in Al Sadr's Mahdi Army.) Yes, folks, throwing more troops at a losing situation, backing a shaky government that can't handle its own security issues, rattling the saber at Cambodia/Iran...who says Dubya isn't a student of history?

Fortunately, for the first time since the beginning of the war, Congress isn't having it, with even some Republicans joining Dems in rallying against the proposed troop increase and today venting their wrath at Condi Rice before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. (No doubt the poll numbers against Dubya's plan is helping to stiffen some GOP spines.) Still, Dubya has some allies in this fight -- While the Dems are universally opposed to the escalation gamble [Dem Response by Durbin | Biden | Clinton | Dodd | Edwards | Feingold | Obama | Pelosi] and a not-insubstantial number of Republicans are balking, some key GOP pols are still supporting Dubya's move (most notably John McCain, who's been calling for a troop increase since day one, and Rudy Giuliani, likely trying to right the 2008 ship after his recent devastating document dump.)

First Vilsack, then McCain...Now Rudy Giuliani looks to be throwing his hat in the 2008 ring. But is the GOP base really of a New York state of mind? Somehow, I'd doubt it.

I also found this grisly pic of Angry Cheney on Looka (and Eschaton), and it reminded me of something that I couldn't quite put my finger on. But, while walking Berkeley this evening, it came to me. In fact, I think I might just have figured out the inspiration behind Karl Rove's whole two-faced strategy:

And, just to round out the meme...

(Pics via HalloweenTown. And a similar take on the Zellout can be found here, also via Eschaton.) Update: The Zellout also brought to mind this, but I ultimately thought it was a disservice to poor Bilbo. He wasn't that far gone in Rivendell.

I often run cold on Will Saletan, but I thought his summary of last night's GOP speeches was dead on. On the subtext of John McCain's remarks: "Forget the tax cuts. Forget the outsourcing. Forget the dividend tax breaks and the estate tax repeal. Pay no attention to the hand in your pocket. Close your eyes and think of America." On Giuliani's fib-filled suck-up to Dubya: "[T]he most important characteristic of a great speaker -- contrary to the view of my colleagues who are raving about Giuliani's speech -- is being honest. Bush wasn't right, and Giuliani isn't honest, and no amount of bullheadedness can make up for that."

Whatsmore, Saletan has kept his current streak going with today's piece on the problem with Dubya's so-called courage: "Pardon me for asking, but where exactly is the heroism in this story? Where, indeed, is the heroism in anything Bush has done before 9/11 or since?...This is Bush's heroism? Showing up three days later, 'remaining in the area,' and enduring a hug?"

"Two years ago the only places it was illegal to dance were Manhattan and Afghanistan. And now you can dance in Afghanistan." The Village Voice delves into Manhattan's bizarre cabaret law, used since the Giuliani era to preserve "Quality of Life" and to stop New Yorkers from spontaneously getting their groove on. Speaking as somebody with happy feet (or, in the parlance of this article, an "incidental dancer,") I find this particularly annoying, and can think of a lot of other bar habits I'd rather see made verboten.

Giuliani appears to be spending his 9.11 mojo on possibly replacing Cheney in 2004. And we all know where that will lead.