Recently in Karl Roving Category

"'Under the Bush regime, honest and well-performing US Attorneys were fired for petty patronage, political horse trading and, in the most egregious case of political abuse of the US Attorney corps -- that of US Attorney Iglesias -- because he refused to use his office to help Republicans win elections,' Conyers said. 'When Mr. Iglesias said his firing was a 'political fragging,' he was right.'" The House Judiciary Committee releases the information they've collected on the US Attorney scandal, and -- hold on to your hats, people -- it looks like Karl Rove has been less than truthful with Congress about his role in the illegal firings. A huge surprise, I know.

So...are political firings and lying to Congress still against the law these days, or is the plan to treat these particular criminal offenses like we do torture? In the meantime, I'd expect Rove is on the phone right this very moment, imploring his good friends at FreedomWorks and the like to dial up the crazies for the next few news cycles.

Update: More comes to light on Harriet Miers' involvement as well.

As most everyone keeping up on current events these days knows, the people around the president, as well as the president himself, spend a good bit of time emphasizing the pragmatic nature of this administration. One senior administration official recently deemed the president a "devout nonideologue", and Obama himself has argued several times that he aims to tackle the myriad problems before us with a "ruthless pragmatism." Now, we've seen nothing to indicate that Obama's pragmatic nature is an act. If anything, from installing Sen. Clinton as his Secretary of State to keeping Sec. Gates at Defense, it's clear that pragmatism, accommodation, and inclusiveness are his temperamental instincts as a politician. Nevertheless, it's also clear that comparisons to Franklin Roosevelt, and the "bold, persistent experimentation" Roosevelt promised in 1932 -- and subsequently followed through on over the course of the decade -- aren't entirely undesired by the White House.

Well, I've been traveling over the past few days, and thus haven't been following the news as closely as usual. Still, even given President Obama's health care announcement on Monday (highly reminiscent of the NRA in that it purports to let the big players in the health care industry help write the codes, so to speak) and the welcome declaration on Wednesday that the administration would soon seek a new regulatory apparatus for derivatives markets, Franklin Roosevelt was not the first president that came to mind as a point of reference for Obama this week.

No, that would be Gerald Ford, who, most historians agree, was an honorable man thrust into a thorny dilemma by the crimes of his predecessor, and who grievously hamstrung his own brief administration by deciding to pardon Richard Nixon. And now, it seems, history gets dangerously close to repeating itself. For, it's moved beyond obvious that the Dubya administration not only willfully engaged in torture -- clearly, bad enough -- but did so to compel false confessions of an Iraq-9/11 connection that they knew never existed. And yet, we've already witnessed the ungainly sight of President Obama equivocating on the question of prosecutions in the name of some dubious "time for reflection, not retribution." (Never mind that, as President Obama reminds us on other matters, wounds, like corruption, fester in the dark.)

This week, President Obama has compounded his recent error -- twice. In the first of two eleventh-hour reversals, Obama -- who has promised us "an unprecedented level of openness in government" many times over -- instead chose to side with the publicists of the Pentagon and block the court-ordered release of new photographs detailing detainee abuse: "'The publication of these photos would not add any additional benefit to our understanding of what was carried out in the past by a small number of individuals,' Obama said yesterday. 'In fact, the most direct consequence of releasing them, I believe, would be to further inflame anti-American opinion and to put our troops in danger.'" (How bad are they? If Sy Hersh is correct, and there's no reason to think he isn't, they could be very, very bad.)

Then, today, the Obama administration announced they will continue using extra-legal military tribunals, not federal courts or military courts martial, for Gitmo suspects. "'Military commissions have a long tradition in the United States,' said Obama in a statement. 'They are appropriate for trying enemies who violate the laws of war, provided that they are properly structured and administered.'" (The key line of the WP story: "In recent weeks, however, the administration appears to have bowed to fears articulated by the Pentagon that bringing some detainees before regular courts presented enormous legal hurdles and could risk acquittals.)"

Obama's statements aside, the arguments -- re: excuses -- in favor of blocking the release of these no-doubt-horrifying photos and maintaining extralegal tribunals -- now with 33% less illegality! -- are the thin gruel you might expect. The WP's Dan Froomkin already eviscerated the former quite devastatingly, while Salon's Glenn Greenwald, laudable as usual, has taken point on the idiocy of the latter: "[W]e'll give due process as long as we're sure we can win, and if we can't, we'll give you something less." In both cases, the principle animating the advice given to President Obama seems mainly to be the usual self-serving, CYA behavior of Dubya holdovers at the Pentagon.

But that doesn't absolve President Obama of his failures here. For whatever reason -- perhaps he's trying to smooth things over in these areas so he can focus on the considerable domestic problems on his plate -- Obama is increasingly making the exact same mistake as Gerald Ford. As other commentators have pointed out, by shoving the rampant illegalities of the GWoT under the rug -- or worse, perpetuating them -- Obama is dangerously close to making his administration retroactively complicit in the crimes of the previous administration.

Now, I'd like to move on to fixing the economy and universal health care -- not to mention voting, lobbying, and campaign finance reform -- as much as the next guy., But sidestepping the tough choices on torture and the imperial presidency, as Paul Krugman (whom I've had issues with but am in complete lockstep with here) noted a few weeks ago, is simply not an option, if we are to maintain anything resembling our national soul after this egregious wallowing in torture and illegality.

Speaking of which, a quick comment on the emerging question of what and when Speaker Pelosi knew about torture (which the Republicans have shamelessly latched onto like a life raft -- see in particular Karl Rove frantically pointing at her to save his own skin the other day. You can almost smell the desperate flop sweat exuding from his every pore.) Well, let's look into it. Commissions, investigations, prosecutions -- let's quit screwing around and start getting to the bottom of this fiasco. I can't believe I have to keep writing this like it's even a bone of contention, but look: If we can't get it together enough to collectively agree that torture is both immoral and illegal, and that those who designed and orchestrated these war crimes during the Dubya administration be subject to investigation, prosecution, and punishment, then we might as well call this whole "rule of law" thing off. As ethicist David Luban noted yesterday in congressional testimony, the relevant case law here is not oblique. Either the laws apply to those at the very top, or they don't -- in which case, it's hard to see why anyone else should feel bound to respect them either.

Which brings me back to pragmatism. Hey, in general, I'm all for it, particularly when you consider all the many imbecilities thrust upon the world by the blind ideological purity of the neocons of late. But, let's remember, the limits of pragmatism as a guiding national philosophy were exposed before all the world before Obama, or even FDR, ever took office. When, after several years of trying to stay well out of the whole mess, Woodrow Wilson entered America into World War I in 1917, the very fathers of Pragmatism, most notably philosopher of education John Dewey, convinced themselves war was now the correct call and exhorted their fellow progressives, usually in the pages of The New Republic, to get behind it. (Many did, but others -- such as Jane Addams and Nation editor Oswald Villard -- did not.) War went from being a moral abomination to a great and necessary opportunity for national renewal. Given it was a done deal, the pragmatic thing to do now was to go with the flow.

Aghast at this 180-degree shift in the thinking of people he greatly admired, a young writer named Randolph Bourne called shenanigans on this "pragmatic" turnaround, and excoriated his former mentors for their lapse into war fervor. "It must never be forgotten that in every community it was the least liberal and least democratic elements among whom the preparedness and later the war sentiment was found," Bourne wrote. "The intellectuals, in other words, have identified themselves with the least democratic forces in American life. They have assumed the leadership for war of those very classes whom the American democracy had been immemorially fighting. Only in a world where irony was dead could an intellectual class enter war at the head of such illiberal cohorts in the avowed cause of world-liberalism and world-democracy."

Now, you'd be hard-pressed to find a bigger cheerleader for the progressives than I. But the fact remains that Bourne, who perished soon thereafter in the 1918 influenza epidemic, was prescient in a way that many of the leading progressive thinkers were not. The emotions unleashed by the Great War and its aftermath (as well as the sight of the accompanying Russian Revolution) soon fractured completely the progressive movement in America, and proved exceedingly fertile soil for the reascendancy of the most reactionary elements around. (Back then "Bolshevik" and "anarchist" were preferred as the favorite epithets of the "One Hundred Percent American" right-wing, although "socialist," then as now, was also in vogue. At least then they had real socialists around, tho'.) And the pragmatic writers and thinkers of TNR, who thought they could ride the mad tiger through a "war to end all wars," instead found their hopes and dreams chewed up and mangled beyond recognition. They wanted a "world made safe for democracy" and they ended up with the Red Scare, Warren Harding, and an interstitial peace at Versailles that lasted less than a generation.

The point being: however laudable a virtue in most circumstances, pragmatism for pragmatism's sake can lead one into serious trouble. And, as a guiding light of national moral principle, it occasionally reeks. As Dewey and his TNR compatriots discovered to their everlasting chagrin, you can talk yourself into pretty much anything and deem it "pragmatic," when it's in fact just the path of least resistance. And, when your guiding philosophy of leadership is to always view intense opposing sides as Scylla and Charybdis, and then to steer through them by finding the calm, healthy middle, you can bet dollars-to-donuts that the conservative freaks of the industry will always be pushing that "center" as far right as possible, regardless of the issues involved. And, eventually, without a guiding moral imperative at work -- like, I dunno, torture is illegal, immoral, and criminal, or the rule of law applies to everyone -- you may discover that that middle channel is no longer in the middle at all, but has diverted strongly to the right. In which case, welcome to Gerald Ford territory.

Nobody wants that, of course. We -- on the left, at least -- all want to remember the Obama administration not as a well-meaning dupe notable mainly for its unfortunate rubberstamping of Dubya-era atrocities, but as a transformational presidency akin to those of Lincoln and the two Roosevelts. To accomplish this goal, it would behoove the White House to remember that Lincoln, pragmatic that he was, came to abolition gradually, but come to abolition he did. Or consider that Franklin Roosevelt, pragmatic that he was, eventually chose his side as well. "I should like to have it said of my first Administration that in it the forces of selfishness and of lust for power met their match," FDR said in his renomination speech of 1936. "I should like to have it said of my second Administration that in it these forces met their master."

I should like to have it said of President Obama's administration as well. The alternative -- Obama's sad, "pragmatic" capitulation to Dubya-era criminals -- is too depressing to contemplate. But the picture below (found here) gives you a pretty good sense of what it'll mean for America if we don't get to the bottom of this, and soon.

"[Obama] should have, right from the beginning, been more forthcoming." Uh...what? Former White House consigliere Karl Rove, he of the missing e-mails and the congressional contempt citation, takes it upon himself to lecture the incoming Obama administration on issues of transparency vis a vis the Blagojevich situation, which is a bit like listening to Dirty Harry tsk-tsk someone for not following standard police procedure. I'm sorry, Karl, but you don't have much credibility when it comes to the "forthcoming" department. Not. at. all.

The larger story here, of course, is the Republican attempt to ascribe nefarious deeds to the Obama team when it's patently clear, from the transcripts and otherwise, that the incoming administration's hands are clean in the Blagojevich matter. We've seen this movie several times before during the Clinton era, when conservatives, abetted by the lazy groupthink tendencies of certain scandal-hungry media outlets, conspired to create full-blown, prolonged investigations out of Whitewater and the like. Let's hope we're all a little bit wiser to the origins of such manufactured controversies nowadays.

Before we set about picking a new president, some thoughts on the departing one: Oliver Stone's W, which I saw a few weeks ago and have been negligent in writing about, is a decently enjoyable and surprisingly sympathetic portrayal of America's worst president since James Buchanan. Still, it also seems a film that very few among the electorate were in the mood for right about now: Many lefties, I think, were looking for more red meat from the famously confrontational and controversial Stone, while conservatives were never going to set foot in the theater in the first place. As it is, W seems to have gotten sorta lost in the shuffle...which is too bad, really. It's a solid-enough biopic, and definitely far better than Stone's recent misfires, Alexander and World Trade Center. And, while it's played mostly straight, there are still a few funny satiric jabs interspersed throughout the film. (See, for example, Dubya and the Vulcans getting lost on a dusty Texas hike.) So I'd recommend it...with some misgivings.

As with his underrated take on Nixon, Stone mainly seems to want to understand, and thus humanize, Dubya here -- Don't judge a man until you've walked a mile in his boots, etc. etc. And yet, while I found both the sentiment and the attempt laudable, I also think Stone may have missed the mark a bit here. In making Dubya so congenial (partly the fault of Josh Brolin, I guess, who's both great and thoroughly likable in the role), and in putting so much emphasis on his daddy issues (more on that in a bit), Stone seems to absolve 43 of more than he should in the end. However oppressive the psychological burden of being a Bush, Dubya was ultimately his own man and his own president, and, lordy, was he a terrible one. However, generous Stone's impulse in trying to understand Dubya, you can't just pin all of the incompetence and misdeeds of the past eight years on a lousy, poor-little-rich-boy upbringing.

If you've ever read anything about Bush 43, the story goes as you might expect: After a brief intro in Rangers Stadium, we meet President George W. Bush (Brolin) and various advisors in the Oval Office, as they mull over the decision to go to war to Iraq in 2003. (Speaking of which, Cheney seems a bit too Dreyfussian to me, Jeffrey Wright's Powell is far too heroic, and Toby Jones is too lithe and elfin -- and not nearly porcine enough -- to capture Karl Rove, but Thandie Newton's nerdy, scroonchy-faced Condi Rice is both kinda cruel and scarily dead-on.) In any case, soon thereafter we flip back to Junior's days at Yale, where the young dauphin spends his time drinking, frat-ernizing, and generally upholding the unyoked humor of his idleness. Basically, Dubya -- crafty and streetwise, but too often convinced in the infallibility of his "gut" -- is a good-natured screw-up of the first order, and he'd be the first to admit it, as he does time and time again to the long-suffering, emotionally reticent if otherwise indulgent "Poppy" (James Cromwell).

Yet, despite failure after failure, this good-timin' man evenually manages to muster up one great success in his life by wooing a good-hearted woman, the lovely librarian Laura (Elizabeth Banks). And, after a literal come-to-Jesus moment at the age of 40 (that's right, the bottle let him down), Dubya decides he will follow in Poppy's footsteps and enter the family business of politics. But, will his parents ever take this prodigal son seriously, particularly as compared to the family's one great hope, Jeb? And, even if they do, what lengths will Dubya go to alleviate his long-standing psychological issues with his father at this point? Would he, for example, start a war he thinks 41 didn't finish?

Now, from Charlie Sheen choosing between his working-class hero pa and Gordon Gekko in Wall Street, to Mickey and Mallory Knox inflicting the consequences of their childhood/sexual abuse on unsuspecting bystanders in Natural Born Killers, psychologically overdetermined characterization due to daddy issues is usually as omnipresent as mystical shamans in Oliver Stone films. (Or, for the other side of the coin, consider Mother Mary Steenburgen as the Ghost of Quaker Past in Nixon, or Angelina Jolie hissing with snakes in Alexander.) And, by itself, the Poppy-Dubya emphasis doesn't bother me all that much -- Stone is at his best when he's painting on a broad canvas and laying it on thick, and just as the "cancer on the presidency" that was Watergate lent itself well to the gothic, Fall of the House of Usher look of Nixon, the story of 41 and 43 is an easy target for Henry IV/Henry V-type overtones.

All that being said, can all the colossal mistakes and errors in judgment that have characterized the past eight years really just be attributed to the Dubya family dynamic? Stone tries to mitigate this notion some, I guess, by giving us an imaginary disquisition in the War Room on the World According to Dick Cheney. (It involves oil, Iran, and the embrace of empire.) Still, one mostly gets the sense here that Dubya is a regular, friendly fellow who's just bitten off more than he can chew in an attempt to please his pop. Such a reading, I think, underplays Dubya's own arrogance, his close-minded conviction in his own sense of the right, his Ivy League legacy-kid air of entitlement, his sniveling weasliness when caught in a pickle, and his habitual intellectual dishonesty. Put another way, I get the sense the real Dubya is much more of an unlikable jackass than Stone and Brolin make him out to be here, and you can't just pin all that and Dubya's constant sucking as president on Pop. I mean, c'mon now, dads don't get much worse than Darth Vader, but Luke turned out ok (if a bit whiny like the old man.) Eventually, the man must stand -- and fall -- on his own.

Still, for all its wallowing in Freudian father issues, W does end on an enjoyably bizarre note, with Dubya writhing on the horns of existential crisis. (No wonder he started reading The Stranger.) Has the prodigal son succeeded beyond his father's wildest dreams in Iraq, or has he forever shrouded the Bush name in ignominy? And how does one handle a situation like the one in Iraq anyway, where, unlike baseball (and bowling), there are no rules? For Dubya, it seems, the story ends at is has for him in most other situations -- with him walking away with a smile, not looking back, and leaving someone else to clean up the godawful mess he's left behind.

"The hardball tactics of Rove have defined American political life for a long time. The Clintons have now shown they have learnt from the master. The question for the Democrats is whether they want a candidate who can play the Rove game as cynically and as brutally as the Republicans. Or whether they want a new start and a new politics. That’s what is at stake now in the Democratic race. And one side has shown its true colours." Reviewing the Democratic primary campaign so far, Andrew Sullivan also sees the Clintons using the Karl Rove playbook. "Ever since the Clintons’ near-death experience in the Iowa vote, their campaign has been playing a very Rovian game. The use of the politics of fear is just the start. In fact classic Rovian tactics are now at the heart of the Clinton campaign."

False Hopes and Fairy tale redux: "If you have a social need, you're with Hillary. If you want Obama to be your imaginary hip black friend and you're young and you have no social needs, then he's cool." And the Clinton camp sinks even lower. A Clinton adviser denigrates Barack Obama as little more than a "Bagger Vance"-ish figment of devil-may-care young people's imagination to The Guardian's Daniel Freedland, insulting Sen. Obama and the political activism of young voters in the process. What was Margaret Carlson's line about Al Gore in 2000? "[W]hen Gore descends to the politics he disdains, he can't find the level beneath which he will not sink." Looks like it applies here as well.

Well, "Clinton adviser," You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. And if you "imagine" all Obama voters are just going to flock back to Sen. Clinton's candidacy in droves -- should she even win the nomination, which is a very open question -- if this type of garbage keeps up, it might be time for a reality check.

Update: Senator Clinton is now referring to Obama as a "part-time state senator." Uh, what the hell? From the NYT, June 2007: "[As State Senator,] Mr. Obama helped deliver what is said to have been the first significant campaign finance reform law in Illinois in 25 years. He brought law enforcement groups around to back legislation requiring that homicide interrogations be taped and helped bring about passage of the state’s first racial-profiling law. He was a chief sponsor of a law enhancing tax credits for the working poor, played a central role in negotiations over welfare reform and successfully pushed for increasing child care subsidies."

Wow, I must say, that's quite a lot for an "imaginary hip black friend" and "part-time state senator" to get done (and considerably more than Clinton -- my Senator from New York -- has to show for her own legislative career.) So where is she getting "part-time" from? Or has she just decided to glom on to Karl Rove's recent "lazy" motif? (And speaking of that anti-Obama Rove piece, consider the source. Why would Rove be backing Clinton's play these days anyway? Perhaps it's because she's good for thousands of GOP votes coming out of the woodwork in the general election, and everyone knows it.) Update: Now Newt's doing it, too.

My disgust deepens.

Remember the persecuted prosecutors? The Senate Judiciary does, voting 12-7 to hold Karl Rove and Josh Bolten in contempt of Congress. "Two Republicans, Arlen Specter and Charles Grassley, joined the committee Democrats in the contempt vote. Today's action means contempt citations are now pending in both the House and Senate."

"I'm leaving on my own terms and I'm leaving with a clear-eyed realism that this isn't going to mean fewer investigations or subpoenas or weird comments by members of the Democratic caucus." Well, Karl, we'll always have hip-hop. One of this administration's biggest rats leaps off the sinking ship as Karl Rove announces his resignation at the end of the month. But, not to worry. Dubya's infamous consigliere will no doubt be back in the public eye when the investigations clear and the indictments come down. So, see ya soon, Turd Blossom, and sorry your grand visions of a Republican realignment turned to ashes. I'm sure we'll still fit you in the history books...somewhere.

"Congress will act to preserve and protect our criminal justice system and to ensure appropriate Congressional oversight in all areas essential to the well-being of the American people," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said in a statement." Faced with continued White House stonewalling and armed with a new report that underscores the adminstration's malfeasance, the House Judiciary Committee issued contempt citations to former White House Counsel Harriet Miers and Chief of Staff Josh Bolten for their failure to honor House subpoenas on the persecuted prosecutors matter earlier this month. And, on the Senate side, Dems -- with a document trail on their side -- call for a perjury investigation into Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on the same day a subpoena is issued for consigliere Karl Rove. Dubya flunkies, meet the rule of law. Update: More grist for the perjury mill: FBI Director Robert Mueller contradicts Gonzales' prior testimony.

It's not just Karl. Newly released information finds that as many as 88 officials in the Dubya White House have been (illegally) using RNC e-mail addresses as a back-door way to discuss official business off the record. "'As a result of these policies, potentially hundreds of thousands of White House e-mails have been destroyed, many of which may be presidential records,' the report said."

Following up on recent news that Karl Rove's political behavior was being looked into, the WP describes how White House officials gave 20 private political briefings to government agency officials on the 2006 midterms, likely to push them into helping out struggling GOP candidates. "Such coercion is prohibited under a federal law, known as the Hatch Act, meant to insulate virtually all federal workers from partisan politics."

"'We will take the evidence where it leads us. We will not leave any stone unturned.'" Well, Sheryl Crow's the least of his worries now. Based on the fact that several different current investigations seem to point his way, the White House's Office of Special Counsel opens an inquiry into Karl Rove, to ascertain if (and how often) he's violated the Hatch Act. "'This is a big deal,' Paul C. Light, a New York University expert on the executive branch, said of [Special Counsel] Bloch's plan. 'It is a significant moment for the administration and Karl Rove. It speaks to the growing sense that there is a nexus at the White House that explains what's going on in these disparate investigations.'" And, in related news, John Edwards calls for Rove's firing, based on his refusal to testify about the persecuted prosecutors.

"'You can't erase e-mails, not today,' Leahy said in an angry speech on the Senate floor. "They've gone through too many servers. Those e-mails are there -- they just don't want to produce them. It's like the infamous 18-minute gap in the Nixon White House tapes.'" Breaking last Friday: Just as the persecuted prosecutors case boils to a head, four years of Karl Rove's e-mail go conveniently missing from the RNC archives. And, also developing on the prosecutorial front, another subpoenaed Justice official, Michael Battle, has contradicted Gonzales' earlier professions of ignorance on the subject, setting up the Attorney General for a raucous time during his hearings tomorrow: "Gonzales...has been preparing for a pivotal appearance on Tuesday before the committee, including mock testimony sessions lasting up to five hours a day, officials said. Better get that story straight, Al.

In the past week, I have seen two things that made me want to claw out my eyes Oedipus-style and run screaming down Amsterdam Ave. One was the live octopus scene in Oldboy, a movie that's worth seeing for the hallway fight sequence alone but, lordy, is hard to watch. (The tongue and teeth parts ain't much better. I'm learning I just can't hang with the edgy Korean cinema, but I still find it preferable to grotesque Miike stuff like Ichi the Killer. That film is just plain sick.) The other: Karl Rove rapping. Is it the token black guy standing next to him? NBC's David Gregory forced to bob up and down in the background? The porcine lack of rhythm and gesticulating of Mr. Rove himself? Or the whole sheer staggering whiteness, bordering on minstrelsy, of the scene taken together? (Paging David Roediger.) Whatever it is, it is straight-up cringeworthy.

The plot thickens: A battle over executive privilege looms as the Senate handily rejects Dubya's attempt to evade subpoenas for Karl Rove, Harriet Miers, and other administration officials in the persecuted prosecutors dispute. "'The only thing they would accept is if the Senate did exactly what they told them to, which would be closed-door, limited number of people, limited agenda, no oath and no transcript, so nobody knows exactly what happened,' Leahy said. 'So there's really nothing to look for for a compromise, because that is not acceptable to me.'" For their part, Spineless Specter advocated a capitulation to Dubya, as per the norm, while Republican Charles Grassley supported the Senate's use of the subpoena power.

Fitz's revenge? Broiling considerably while I was on my annual March Madness vacation, the case of the persecuted prosecutors now looks, at the very least, like it may result in Alberto Gonzales' downfall (despite Dubya's continued huzzahs), what with new e-mail trails coming to light, more congressional subpoenas on the way, and Dubya consigliere Karl Rove tied ever closer to the scandal. Congressional oversight is a beast, eh, guys?

The wheels may have come off the Bush bandwagon several months ago, but that's not stopping Karl Rove from trying to finesse Dubya's place in the history books. And, like his boss, Karl seems to be attempting the Truman route: "In the West Wing interview, Rove adopted a longer view, citing the policy of containment of the Soviet Union, adopted by Truman in the 1940s and then embraced by a succession of presidents despite initial misgivings, as reason to believe history may offer a kinder assessment of the durability of Bush policies and institutional changes." Hmm. When it comes to the war on terror, somehow I doubt dropping the ball in Afghanistan to prosecute a badly-bungled war of choice in Iraq is going to look any better to future generations. Just a hunch.

"'I've always been trained that loyalty is a two-way street,' Iglesias answered. 'I started thinking: Why am I protecting these people who not only did me wrong but did wrong to the system for appointing U.S. attorneys?'" The House and Senate Judiciary Committees listen to testimony from eight former U.S. attorneys concerning what appears to be an epidemic of illegal GOP arm-twisting. "The [Justice] department has also acknowledged that Cummins, the Little Rock prosecutor, was asked to resign solely to provide a job for a former aide to presidential adviser Karl Rove."

As Scooter Libby's defense begins in Washington, a slew of reporters -- including Bob Woodward, Bob Novak, and Evan Thomas -- testify that Libby was not their source in the Plamegate fiasco, with Novak pinning the onus on Karl Rove (and the previously-outed Richard Armitage.) Hmm. Good to know, but whether Libby was the only White House official throwing around Wilson's name or merely one of a team of Dubya flaks doing the same seems incidental to the question of whether he perjured himself.

The wreckage of the midterms behind him, disgraced GOP operative Jack Abramoff heads to prison today to begin a 5-year, 10-month stint in the Big House...but, not -- according to ABC News -- before dropping dirt on Karl Rove and "dozens of members of Congress and staff" including "six to eight seriously corrupt Democratic senators." Sounds like the Ballad of Casino Jack might keep on keepin' on right through the next cycle...Let's hope the Dem Congress are much more vigilant about rooting out the corruption in their midst than were their predecessors.

"'My job is not to be a prognosticator,' he said. 'My job is not to go out there and wring my hands and say, "We're going to lose." I'm looking at the data and seeing if I can figure out, Where can we be? I told the President, "I don't know where this is going to end up. But I see our way clear to Republican control."'" Um, you do? It's the Election 2006 post-mortem y'all have been waiting for: Karl Rove discusses the results of the midterms, and while he correctly cites the war and the GOP's considerable corruption problem, he still doesn't seem to get the big picture. Fine with me...Rove, just keep doin' what you're doin'. It worked splendidly. Update: More here.

I don't really have anything to say about Kerrygate, except, well, is it Tuesday yet? Way to stick your foot in it, Senator. But, really, is this all you guys got? Is this all you can conjure, Rove? The whole GOP media onslaught about it reeks of desperation (as do the gutterball ad campaigns), and, hey, I don't blame them: times are desperate: "'So many different kinds of scandals going on at the same time, that's pretty unique,' Zelizer said. 'There were scandals throughout the '70s, multiple scandals, but the number of stories now are almost overwhelming.'"

"Lame Duck" Dubya and his man behind the curtain, Karl Rove, may be "inexplicably upbeat," but John McCain is apparently contemplating suicide. Meanwhile, Dems Carville and Greenberg suggest breaking out the party credit cards, while the bellwether state of Ohio sours on the GOP completely. Only 20 days left until Election 2006...

"As a former Abramoff assistant, Ralston played intermediary between the lobbyist and Rove. The congressional report found 66 Abramoff contacts with the White House, more than half of them with Ralston. In addition, Abramoff's lobbying colleagues contacted Ralston 69 times." The Casino Jack affair claims another White House victim in Rove deputy Susan Ralston, who, it was recently discovered in a House report, made the mistake of accepting Abramoff swag -- choice tickets and such -- without paying for it. Illegal, no doubt, but somehow I suspect her procuring courtside Wizard tix is the least of the Abramoff-related corruption going on in Karl's outfit.

A new report by the House Committee on Government Reform finds that Casino Jack and his associates billed the White House for 485 visits, ten of which were with Karl Rove. The White House says he's lying, but really now: 485 sounds closer to the mark than two.

"I and my former colleagues trusted the government to protect us in our jobs." Plamegate enters a new phase as Valerie Plame files a lawsuit against Cheney, Rove, and Libby for "leaking Plame's identity to 'discredit, punish and seek revenge against the plaintiffs.'" And for all the rabid right-wingers out there cheering on Paula Jones back in the day, it looks like the chickens have come home to roost: "Cheney and others might be compelled to turn over documents to the Wilsons, as well as give sworn depositions, as President Bill Clinton eventually had to do when Paula Jones sued him for sexual harrassment."

"For nearly the entire time of his investigation, Fitzgerald knew -- independent of me -- the identity of the sources I used in my column of July 14, 2003...I have promised to discuss my role in the investigation when permitted by the prosecution, and I do so now." In a column published today, DoL Robert Novak finally comes clean -- sort of -- about his sources in Plamegate. In the piece, Novak names Karl Rove (big surprise) and CIA spokesman Bill Harlow as his two confirmers of Plame's identity, but still refuses to out the "senior Bush administration official" who served as his initial source (although he does say that Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald is well aware of that person's identity.)

"He's making a political speech. He's sitting in his air-conditioned office on his big, fat backside saying, 'Stay the course.' That's not a plan." As justifiably disgruntled veteran John Murtha lights into bile-spouting chicken-hawk Karl Rove for another gutterball attack on Dems' patriotism, the Democrats step up to the bar and offer two substantive plans for phased withdrawal from Iraq, to be debated tomorrow. "Sens. John Kerry of Massachusetts and Russell Feingold of Wisconsin...pushed an amendment requiring that U.S. combat troops be out by July 2007...In a statement, Kerry and Feingold said a deadline 'gives Iraqis the best chance for stability and self-government' and 'allows us to begin refocusing on the true threats that face our country.'"

Fitzmas is cancelled? Lawyer Robert Luskin announces that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald has told him he "does not anticipate seeking charges" against Karl Rove for his alleged role in Plamegate, partly because Rove apparently told the truth about his involvement to the FBI: "It's now known that Rove had discussed Plame's CIA employment with conservative columnist Robert Novak, who exposed her identity less than a week later...Rove's truth-telling to the FBI saved him from indictment."

For their part, Karl and the GOP are now strutting about in vindication mode and the Dubya White House is breathing a sigh of relief, but Salon's Walter Shapiro says don't fret, Dems: "Rove was not exactly doing hard time on a federal rock pile when Bush's popularity plunged to around 35 percent. It was Rove's handiwork to make Social Security privatization the signature issue of Bush's second term. The disastrous fate of that political gambit, combined with the Iraq war, turned Bush into a lame-duck president before his time. As a political strategist, Rove runs the gamut of issues from A (national security) to B (tax cuts). Six years into his tenure in the White House, Rove may be running on empty, just like the president whom he serves."

All the t's have been crossed and Novaks have been questioned...Now, according to the Post's Jim Vanderhei, Plamegate prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's extended investigation of Karl Rove is nearing resolution. "Rove expects to learn as soon as this month if he will be indicted -- or publicly cleared of wrongdoing -- for making false statements in the CIA leak case, according to sources close to the presidential adviser. An indictment would be devastating to a White House already battered by low poll numbers, a staff shake-up and a stalled agenda."

Fifth time's the charm? Karl Rove returns once more to testify before Patrick Fitzgerald's Plamegate grand jury, mainly to discuss his interactions with TIME reporter Viveca Novak. Will this fifth round of testimony of Dubya's consigliere result in an indictment (and finally make Karl a household name?) Hopefully, we'll know sooner rather than later. Update: Make that 2-3 weeks.

TIME Magazine unveils Josh Bolten's new five-point plan for righting the Dubya presidency: 1) Act tough on immigration with "guns and badges"; 2) Humor Wall Street with extensions on capital gains and dividend tax cuts; 3) "brag more"; 4) Talk tough at Iran; and 5) play nice with the press. So, wait, we're going to war with Iran just so Bolten can squeeze six more months out of lame duck Dubya? Brilliant.

I dannae if the ship of state could take any more...As suspected, the continuing White House shakeup claims another victim in press secretary Scott McClellan. (Text of statement.) Also, Rove got reassigned from policy to politics, but that sounds like more of a cosmetic switch than anything else.

Little ditty about Jack and Dubya: "Bush 'has one of the best memories of any politicians I have ever met,' Abramoff wrote to Kim Eisler of Washingtonian magazine. 'The guys saw me in almost a dozen settings, and joked with me about a bunch of things, including details of my kids.'" Confiding to a reporter friend (and contrary to the White House's protestations,) Casino Jack complains that Dubya has forsaken him. In related news, as David Safavian, one of Abramoff's White House men, is formally charged with obstruction of justice, TIME Magazine publishes the first pic of Dubya and Abramoff together, although it's not what you'd call a slam dunk. Casino Jack (and Karl Rove) merely lurk in the corners while Bush presses the flesh of Abramoff's clients. Ok, they're in the same room together -- that's a start. But there's undoubtedly better pics of the two out there...it's only a matter of time.

With a tip-off from the Progressive Patriots Fund, I had the opportunity yesterday to catch Sen. Russ Feingold speak on the Patriot Act and the NSA wiretapping scandal over at Cardozo Law School. (Their pics are a lot better than mine -- I forgot to charge my batteries, and thus only got in 2 or 3 shots before my camera died on me.) And how was he? Well, all-in-all, he came off as a convincing candidate for the election ahead, as well as an impressive, informed, and personable fellow. To be honest, I found his remarks a bit lawyerly (then again, he's a lawyer speaking before a law school, so that's not really a fair criticism), but, taken in full, he seemed a committeed progressive and a refreshingly candid leader, the type of dynamic, independent thinker the Senate should be teeming with, if the system came anywhere close to working these days.



The gist of Sen. Feingold's remarks was thus: Al Qaeda is the central threat facing America and has been since 9/11. Yet, instead of bringing the nation together to eliminate this terrorist organization, the Dubya White House has chosen time and time again to endanger our national security and compromise our most fundamental American values for their own ideological or power-hoarding purposes. (Iraq, Guantanamo, extraordinary rendition, secret gulags, you name it.) Along those lines and as we now all know, the Patriot Act, which only Feingold voted against in 2001, contains some terrible provisions therein, the most notorious example affecting Middle America being Section 215 (which gives law enforcement, among other things, the right to see what you've been reading.)

Yet, as per the norm, Dubya has refused to admit that it's even possible that something might be wrong with the Patriot Act now that it's up for renewal -- only that it's necessary to defeat the evildoers and that any microscopic change in the statute could rend the fabric of freedom irreparably. (Despite this now-somewhat hoary ploy, Feingold and others have succeeded in blocking a permanent blanket extension for now, as y'all know if you've been visiting here lately.) And, of course, Dubya has taken this same tack of obfuscation and fear-mongering to cover up his brazen wiretapping power-grab -- which, according to Congress's own research arm, broke at least two laws and counting.

Again, this story is not news to many Dems out there, but Feingold laid it out in clear, comprehensible, and systematic fashion. (The only "breaking news" made was the Senator announcing this letter to Gonzales, asking him why he, in effect, lied to the Judiciary Committee during his confirmation hearings about the NSA wiretaps.) And he had some good lines throughout -- In reply to Rove's ridiculous claim that Dems were "pre-9/11", Feingold quipped that the GOP suffered from a "pre-1776" mentality these days. (He also retold the recent Patrick Henry exchange.) To be honest, I'd liked to have heard more in this vein -- In terms of breaking down the legislative legerdemain and legal issues at hand, Feingold was superb. But I thought the speech needed more narrative sweep and rhetorical grandeur, more explanation of why this battle matters so much to the workings of the republic. He doesn't have to turn into Robert Byrd overnight. Still, I thought the remarks could have benefited from more dramatic heft and historical resonance: Jefferson, Madison, Adams, Lincoln, Wilson...they're all relevant here. (Then again, as I said above, I was an historian sitting in a room full of lawyers, so I was a tougher sell than most.)

Along those lines, if there was a problem with this presentation, it's that the Senator, while clearly outraged, at times seemed much less livid about all this than many in the audience, who occasionally sounded ready to hoist the black flag. (In fact, many will no doubt be happy to hear that Feingold was asked twice "why Democrats are so lame." As he noted (and as the blogosphere can attest this week), if a crowd in New York City is this irate with the party, the Dems might be in serious trouble nationwide in November. Still, he also emphasized that the Democrats could be more effective fighters if they actually controlled a house of Congress -- You can't hold hearings if you're in the minority.

In terms of other questions, Feingold said he supports and will take part in the very late-developing (and now already defunct) Alito filbuster (Roll Call.) In fact, he thought the Dems made a crucial mistake in capitulating to the original "Gang of 14" compromise, arguing cogently that Dems have seen nothing for it and may well have had the votes to win Catkiller's game of nuclear chicken. Since Casino Jack and lobbying reform seemed too big a subject to address competently in the time allotted, I asked him a question about his thoughts on the NYT decision to spike the NSA story for a year, his general view of the mass media's performance in serving as a check on these types of executive abuses, and ('cause it seemed apropos) his thoughts on the burgeoning blogosphere's role in all this. He didn't really go after the Times decision, and said that, in terms of the recent Patriot Act debate, he thought the press had actually done an ok job. Regarding blogs, he called the Internet "a miracle for populist politics," which was a good enough soundbite that everyone in my row dutifully wrote it down at the same time.

And, of course, Sen. Feingold was asked -- a couple of times -- whether or not he was running for President in 2008. Naturally, he played it coy -- After all, we still have just under two years before the Iowa caucus. But, for what it's worth, I was impressed by him -- He's not a first-class emoter like Edwards or Clinton, of course. Instead, he comes across as a highly intelligent, capable, and nuanced thinker, a la Bradley, Kerry, or Gore on his better days. But unlike those three, he also seemed much more comfortable in his own skin, more naturally himself at the podium, and -- most importantly -- more content to play the maverick if his lefty principles dictate thus. (Although, as I said, I'd like to see him tone down the lawyer-ese and rev up more Wellstone-ish fire if he does make a White House run.) I suppose there's a small, bordering-on-infinitesimal chance that Rodham Clinton, Biden, Warner, or someone else might drop all the "New Democrat" protective camouflage this time around and begin loudly and undefensively proclaiming progressive principles to the Heavens. But, until that unlikely event, my candidate in the 2008 Democratic primary is Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin. (Update: 1776 link via Medley.)

""The curtain got pulled aside, and there's not even a wizard behind it...these people are incompetent." As you probably heard, Karl Rove emerged from hiding to offer his blueprint for Republican resurgence in 2006. Yep, you guessed it: terror, terror, terror, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, garnished with a smattering of tax cuts. But, to their credit, it sounds like Dems are relishing this coming fight, with Intelligence Committee Dem Jane Harman pushing back once more on the illegal wiretaps, and, in keeping with the recent trend of presidential also-rans finding their voice, John Kerry taking off the gloves on the Sunday shows. "Osama bin Laden is going to die of kidney failure before he's killed by Karl Rove and his crowd."

"One final note: Luskin is unhappy that I decided to write about our conversation, but I feel that he violated any understanding to keep our talk confidential by unilaterally going to Fitzgerald and telling him what was said." TIME reporter Viveca Novak explains her testimony before the Fitzgerald grand jury. Novak, who may well have tipped Luskin to a hole in Rove's story, is now on a leave of absence with TIME "by mutual agreement."

"After the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the former official said, he was told that Bush felt that 'God put me here' to deal with the war on terror. The President's belief was fortified by the Republican sweep in the 2002 congressional elections; Bush saw the victory as a purposeful message from God that 'he's the man,' the former official said. Publicly, Bush depicted his reelection as a referendum on the war; privately, he spoke of it as another manifestation of divine purpose." By way of Salon's War Room, The New Yorker's Sy Hersh scrutinizes the terrifying dogmatism and tone-deafness at work in the White House with regards to Iraq.

Here's more: "[Rove and Cheney] keep him in the gray world of religious idealism, where he wants to be anyway,' the former defense official said. Bush's public appearances, for example, are generally scheduled in front of friendly audiences, most often at military bases. Four decades ago, President Lyndon Johnson, who was also confronted with an increasingly unpopular war, was limited to similar public forums. 'Johnson knew he was a prisoner in the White House,' the former official said, 'but Bush has no idea.'"

Update: According to the Daily News, who published a similar story yesterday, the White House won't comment on the Hersh piece.

Meanwhile, the investigations continue. This weekend, Time reporter Viveca Novak announced she's cooperating with Plamegate prosecutors, who have been asking her about her conversations with Robert Luskin, Karl Rove's attorney, beginning in 2004. Doesn't sound like Rove is off the hook, does it? Update: Apparently, Novak was Rove's alibi: "'This is what caused [Fitzgerald] to hold off on charging' Rove, the source said. But another person familiar with the conversations said they did not appear to significantly alter the case."

Plamegate prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald re-ups on another grand jury, suggesting anew that the Libby indictment was just the first phase of the investigation. Meanwhile, speculation run rampant on the identity of Bob Woodward's new source: Apparently, it's not Cheney, and spokesmen for Rove, Card, Bartlett, Powell, Armitage, Tenet and McLaughlin have all denied it, too (Not that the word of White House officials means all that much these days.) Stephen Hadley, perhaps?

Washington Post editor Bob Woodward testifies to the Fitzgerald grand jury about a third senior White House official involved in disclosing the identity of Valerie Plame, besides Libby and Rove. (Woodward's statement.) This means Libby likely wasn't the first to leak Plame's identity, but the new info has no bearing on his perjury or obstruction of justice indictments.

For Woodward's part, his statement and public comments about the case alternate between high dudgeon ("It was the first time in 35 years as a reporter that I have been asked to provide information to a grand jury") and open ridicule ("When I think all of the facts come out in this case, it's going to be laughable because the consequences are not that great.") Mostly, he just seems cranky that he -- award-winning journalist Bob Woodward! -- was forced to take time away from another puff piece book on Dubya to testify about a felony in the White House. But this isn't news. Frankly, Woodward has been embarrassing his legacy for years...almost any of his talking-head stints on Larry King illustrate that. Since at least the early Clinton years, he's been more desirous of maintaining his high profile and insider status than in promoting good journalism or good government. (And in that, he's reflected the trajectory of many in the newsmedia.) Update: The Post is somewhat irked.

"Why would an experienced lawyer and government official such as Libby leave himself so exposed to prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald?...To critics, the timing suggests an attempt to obscure Cheney's role, and possibly his legal culpability." The Post suggests anew that, in the investigation into the Valerie Plame leak, Scooter Libby fell on his sword for Cheney. Meanwhile, National Journal's Murray Waas reports that Karl Rove's fate rests on Libby's testimony, meaning it may be some time before "Bush's Brain" is indicted, or in the clear.

"He's weary. His wife and only child, who is approaching college, miss him. He has monstrous legal bills. His unique bond with the President is under stress. His most important work is done. Karl Rove's colleagues don't know exactly when it will happen, but they are already laying out the reasons they will give for the departure of the man President George W. Bush dubbed the architect." TIME Magazine suggests anew that Karl Rove is on his way out, and he won't be leaving alone. According to the article by Mike Allen, "[s]everal well-wired Administration officials predict that within a year, the President will have a new chief of staff and press secretary, probably a new Treasury Secretary and maybe a new Defense Secretary."

"Karl does not have any real enemies in the White House, but there are a lot of people in the White House wondering how they can put this behind them if the cloud remains over Karl...You can not have that [fresh] start as long as Karl is there." As Scooter Libby pleads not guilty, the White House contemplates its Rove problem. No enemies, perhaps, but the fact that a story like this is leaking suggest someone wants Rove out. Update: In light of recent events, Slate's Jacob Weisberg revisits the Bush/Rove = McKinley/Hanna analogy.

"'Everyone thinks it is over for Karl and they are wrong,' a source close to Rove said. The strategist's legal and political advisers 'by no means think the part of the investigation concerning Karl is closed.'" As Scooter Libby preps for his Thursday arraignment, Rove continues to sweat the Fitzgerald investigation. Meanwhile, Cheney picked Libby's replacements yesterday, and they're more of the same: The new chief of staff, David Addington, was the co-author of the infamous torture memo, and Cheney's new national security advisor, John Hannah, acted as the conduit for false Iraq intel in the lead-up to war. And, as you might expect of Cheney's cronies, both are already implicated in Plamegate.

"'The president said anyone involved would be gone,' Reid said. 'And we now know that Official A is Karl Rove. He's still around. He should be let go.'" On the Sunday circuit, the Dems make the case for Rove's dismissal, in keeping with Dubya's earlier pledge to fire anyone involved in the Plame leak. And, last-minute Hail Mary notwithstanding, Rove still appears to be in legal trouble. "In prosecutorial parlance, this kind of awkward pseudonym ["Official A"] is often used for individuals who have not been indicted in a case but still face a significant chance of being charged. No other official in the investigation carries such an identifier."

For Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, the White House, and all of Washington, the waiting is the hardest part. But, word is we'll know the results of Fitzgerald's Plamegate inquiry tomorrow, and not a moment too soon.

As Washington waits for the Plamegate endgame and the administration prepares for a possible White House without Rove and Libby, the Post offers brief primer on the major figures in the scandal. Meanwhile, fresh off his felon photo-op, the Hammer tries to get a new judge in his Texas money-laundering case, and seems to be trying every trick in the book to turn his trial into a partisan sideshow. But remember, Boss DeLay, the Abramoff case is closing in fast...

"Bush did not feel misled so much by Karl and others as believing that they handled it in a ham-handed and bush-league way." (Then again, pretty much everything about this administration is bush-league.) A new report indicates that, contrary to previous White House statements and leaks, Dubya knew about Rove's role in Plamegate from the start. Strange this information is being leaked on the eve of indictments...

"Greg Mitchell, who edits Editor & Publisher, writes, 'Miller did far more damage to her newspaper than did Jayson Blair, and that's not even counting her WMD reporting, which hurt and embarrassed the paper in other ways.' Jay Rosen concurs. 'There's no question,' he says, 'this is bigger than Jayson Blair.'
Salon's Farhad Manjoo deconstructs the NY Times coverage of Judy Miller's involvement in Plamegate (available here), and explains why Cheney chief Lewis Libby, in particular, may now be facing an obstruction of justice charge. If it's any consolation, Scooter, Rove's in hot water, too.

"'The one that people are most worried about is Abramoff because it seems to have such long tentacles...This seems to be something that could spread almost anywhere...and that has a lot of people worried.'" As Rove testifies for a fourth time before Patrick Fitzgerald's inquiry into Plamegate and Boss DeLay's phone records are subpoenaed by Texas DA Ronnie Earle, the WP surveys the political fallout from the many GOP corruption scandals currently in play.

"There is no reason for Rove to make this appearance unless he and his counsel believe he is at serious risk of indictment. None." On the day after former White House procurement chief David Safavian is indicted on five counts of lying and obstruction of justice, Karl Rove decides to testify for a fourth time before the grand jury delving into the felonious unmasking of Valerie Plame (presumably to stave off his indictment, or that of someone above him.) So...Rove, Safavian, Libby, Abramoff, Frist, DeLay...how many investigations and indictments can the GOP leadership rack up? Is the whole rotten edifice of GOP corporate cronyism threatening to topple? One can only hope.

"As the CIA leak investigation heads toward its expected conclusion this month, it has become increasingly clear that two of the most powerful men in the Bush administration were more involved in the unmasking of operative Valerie Plame than the White House originally indicated." Bringing the somewhat bizarre recent revelation of Judith Miller's source to bear on the story, the Washington Post surveys the roles of Karl Rove and Scooter Libby in Plamegate. "[Lawyers with inside info] surmise that [Special Prosecutor Patrick] Fitzgerald is considering whether he can bring charges of a criminal conspiracy perpetrated by a group of senior Bush administration officials.."

(Ring-)Breaking news: As with two of his Texas cronies, John Colyandro and Jim Ellis, Boss DeLay has been indicted on criminal conspiracy charges this morning, in connection with the grand jury probe into money laundering at TRMPAC. (TRMPAC itself was indicted a few weeks ago.) As a result, DeLay will be forced to step down as Majority Leader, to be replaced by (corrected, after a possible last-minute switcheroo) Roy Blunt of Missouri. (Of course, even if he beats this indictment, Boss DeLay is also being investigated by federal authorities for his role in the Casino Jack story.)

In 1994, the Republican Contract with America stated that the GOP would "restore accountability to Congress [and] end its cycle of scandal and disgrace." Today, with the Republicans controlling both sides of Congress and the Oval Office, their leader in the House has been indicted as a criminal, their leader in the Senate is under dual investigations for insider trading, and the top moneyman in the White House was arrested only last week for lying and obstruction. (And that's not even counting the inquiries into footsoldiers like Casino Jack Abramoff and Randy "Duke" Cunningham, or the continued investigation into Karl Rove's role in Plamegate.) Simply put, the GOP leadership have broken their promise and embarrassed the nation with their rampant cronyism and illegality. It is time for them to go.

Update: While a vituperative Boss DeLay calls the charges "one of the weakest, most baseless indictments in American history," (now that's a bold statement), the GOP look to Roy Blunt of Missouri (who will share power with Dreier) as their new leader.

Curiouser and curiouser...Already inexorably tied to Boss DeLay and Grover Norquist, "Casino Jack" Abramoff also boasted of a direct connection to Karl Rove two years ago, while helping Tyco and other corporate conglomerates try to avoid tax penalties for moving their operations overseas. Boy, pull at one brick in this rotten edifice of right-wing cronyism and the whole darned structure threatens to topple.

"'He's a friend,' the president said...'He's testified in public, and I believe him.'" In a roundtable with Texas journalists, Dubya backs Karl Rove and Rafael Palmeiro, as well as (somewhat half-heartedly) the teaching of "intelligent design." A bit of a gullible sort, ain't he?

Federalist Society or no, John Roberts now seems almost assured of winning confirmation as the Supreme Court's newest justice (barring an eleventh hour revelation of impropriety, of course.) So, the Dems plan for the next best thing, which is to use the Roberts hearings as political theater with which to expose general right-wing looniness. Hmmm. Might work, I suppose. Hopefully, the Dems will keep their eye on the ball and make sure any gamesmanship on Roberts doesn't suck the press away from the still-growing White House felony investigation, which now seems to include possible perjury and obstruction of justice charges for Rove, Libby, et al. Update: Wilson's revenge? Salon suggests the operative law in the Rove case may be the Espionage Act of 1917, which isn't what you'd call one of progressivism's better moments.

"When asked at one point why he was pursuing the diplomat so aggressively, Rove reportedly responded: 'He's a Democrat.'" From a few days ago, the LA Times looks into Karl Rove and Scooter Libby's aggressive campaign to discredit Joseph Wilson (as seen on Tim Noah's latest Rove Death Watch.)

Ok, the whistleblower defense wasn't really cutting it for Karl...so, what's next? Well, the new GOP talking point seems to be "Novak outed Plame first." So, if true, does this get Rove off the hook? Not hardly. As both Salon's Tim Grieve and Slate's Tim Noah explain more eloquently, confirming Plame's identity to Novak is still a big-time offense (as is passing it on to TIME's Matt Cooper.) But, this does mean that Novak had a second source among Dubya's "senior administration" officials. Ari Fleischer, perhaps?

As Dubya goes mum about Karl Rove's future, Slate's Tim Noah effectively dismantles the GOP's Hail Mary "whistleblower" defense (floated, naturally, on the WSJ op-ed page), Clinton aide Sidney Blumenthal argues Rove's fate will be decided by the special prosecutor, and Salon's Robert Bryce lays out the case for what we all suspect: Dubya won't give up Rove anytime soon.

"The emerging GOP strategy -- devised by Mehlman and other Rove loyalists outside of the White House -- is to try to undermine those Democrats calling for Rove's ouster, play down Rove's role and wait for President Bush's forthcoming Supreme Court selection to drown out the controversy, according to several high-level Republicans." In other words, the GOP is playing it by the book.

"Inside the Bush administration, lying to reporters doesn't even come close to being a firing offense...But Rove blew the cover of an undercover CIA official. If Dubya doesn't fire the man he nicknamed 'Turd Blossom' for this offense, he's an even bigger hack than I think." Slate's Tim Noah explains why Karl Rove really has to go, now that his central role in Plamegate has come to light. Update: The White House clams up.

Was Karl Rove the source who outed Valerie Plame to Novak & others? His lawyer says no, but he's definitely proven himself amoral enough in the past to be capable of it.

"There's not much these days that the two parties in Washington can rally around, as evidenced by the increasingly shrill tone here. You might think that one thing on which everyone in both parties could agree would be a resolution apologizing for the Senate's failure, over many decades, to make it a federal crime for racists to hunt black people like animals and hang them from trees." Terry Neal wonders why eleven GOP Senators refused to sign the recent anti-lynching resolution. (Cliopatria's Robert KC Johnson posted a list of the eleven Senator's responses from Roll Call a few days ago.)

As I've said earlier, I can see how a mea culpa that's coming anywhere from thirty to 130 years late may not be the most useful legislation ever passed by the Senate. But, when it comes time to mark your name down against an abomination like lynching, why not take the opportunity? To paraphrase Karl Rove, moderation and restraint is not what I feel when I see African-Americans strung up and mutilated by mobs of white folk. But, for one reason or another, a sizable number of the GOP think different. Therapy and understanding for the attackers, perhaps?

"Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers...I don't know about you, but moderation and restraint is not what I felt when I watched the twin towers crumble to the ground." No, Karl, you felt confusion and stark abject terror...or is there some other reason why our Fearless Leader spent that fateful day (post-Pet Goat, of course) AWOL in the skies over Louisiana and Nebraska, leaving Mayor Giuliani to rally the nation?

At any rate, I'm sensing a pattern here...Soon after a GOP rep invokes 9/11 to flog a flag-burning amendment, White House strategist Karl Rove wallows in 9/11 and liberal-bashing before a GOP crowd here in NYC. Phew, talk about a Hail Mary. That dated soft-on-terror swill isn't going to get lame duck Dubya's domestic agenda off the ground, Karl. So you'd best start scroungin' through that bottomless bag of dirty tricks for a different silver bullet. This outrageous claptrap is sad, pathetic, and demeaning...even coming from a right rotten bastard like Rove. Update: The Dems respond, and the White House digs in.

Nuclear negotiations break down between Reid and Frist, setting the stage for a cataclysmic Senate meltdown this week over Karl Rove's pet judge, Priscilla Owen. (That is, unless the Ben Nelson-John McCain compromise -- which seems a considerable capitulation by the Dems -- gains currency with the GOP.) Can Catkiller really have the votes? Surely, there are more than three so-called "conservatives" in the Senate who would vote against this type of radical rule change. Or has the GOP sunk so low? Update: A few days old now, but ah well: Salon offers a handy nuclear primer.

Meanwhile on the House side, Boss DeLay has responded to his recent problems by continuing to act like an inveterate jackass, including calling in the NRA as armed backup and badmouthing Justice Anthony Kennedy to anyone who'll listen on right-wing talk radio. Yet, instead of taking the Hammer to the woodshed, Dubya consigliere Karl Rove has taken Delay to his breast, calling him "a good man, a close ally of this administration." Well, ok, then, Karl, but don't complain when further inquiries into DeLay's corruption redound upon the White House, then.

Dubya consigliere and strategy guru Karl Rove is promoted to Deputy Chief of Staff, making official his imprimatur on White House policy decisions. Hmm. It seems doubtful this particular reshuffling will enthuse Dems on the administration's second term agenda.

Hope is on the...wait, what's this? Oops, sorry about that. Turns out Hope took a wrong turn and got lost somewhere back there in Idiotville. Welcome to Despairtown, baby.

So, that's that, then...the Idiot Wind blows anew. The American electorate has spoken and -- despite all the shadiness and incompetence of the past four years -- has given Dubya and his cronies the imprimatur to go hog-wild. 51-48%...this is pretty much a mandate, folks. (Big of those Red Staters to ensure that we will be woefully unprepared for the next terrorist attack on a Blue State.) Y'know, H.L. Mencken's whole Tyranny of the Booboisie schtick has always grated on my lefty sensibilities, but at this point I have to admit he may have been on to something.

Ugh. I'm too young to remember 1984 very well, but I'm curious as to how last night and this morning compared for America's Left. (I've since been reminded by several people I trust that 1968 and 1972 were much more grievous blows.) Thing is, 2004 started out with such promise over here. But, right around the time I ended up on crutches in May, events personal and political took a nasty turn, and the past few months have been some of the most dismal I can remember. Now, it seems, I may just look back on this time as relatively calm and worry-free.

But, ok, enough wallowing...let's start taking it frame-by-frame. Given the war, the economy, and Dubya's obvious incompetence, how on Earth did we lose this election? Well, give credit where credit is due...all this exit-talk of "moral values" proves that Karl Rove pulled off his gambit: He got the extra 4 million evangelical votes he was targeting, partly, it seems, by judiciously invoking rampant anti-gay hysteria. Yet, for some reason or another -- a lousy ground game, perhaps? -- the Dems inexplicably didn't counter with extra votes of our own.

Where do we go from here? The Dems are facing an ugly Rule of Four...We lost four seats in the Senate, at least four seats in the House, and likely four seats in the Supreme Court. Whatsmore, we now appear officially dead in the water in the South and Midwest. And, with Kerry and Daschle gone, our standard-bearers now appear to be Hillary Clinton (about whom the country has already made up its mind), John Edwards (whom I still admire, but he couldn't carry his home state), and Barrack Obama (who's probably too inexperienced to make much headway in 2008.)

Obviously, it's now well past time for the serious party overhaul we should've began last cycle, when Al Gore had an election stolen from him that he should have won hands down. Daschle & Gephardt are already in the dustbin of history, and Terry McAuliffe should probably follow them there. I for one don't think Howard Dean was or is the answer, but he's one of the only people injecting new blood and enthusiasm into the party right now, so he should have a seat at the table. Right now, I think Edwardsian populism is our strongest ideological card, but as I said, it didn't seem to make much headway last night.

Silver lining? Yeah, right. Well, as this Washington Monthly forum noted in September, second terms are notoriously scandal-prone (Watergate, Iran-Contra, Monica), partly out of press boredom, and Dubya's ilk seem particularly scandal-worthy...perhaps we'll finally hear a little more about Halliburton. I'm sure there'll be no shortage of horrifying policy decisions emanating from this administration that'll keep lefty blogs like this one in business. And, on a purely selfish note, my likely dissertation topic on the fortunes of progressivism in the twenties is now seeming much more sexy in the wake of last night's 1928-like cultural divide. Of course, none of these are really any consolation at all.

At any rate, I generally believe that America tends to get the president it deserves. So, God help us, we've brought this upon ourselves. And now, for we 48%, the hard work begins...we have to lick our wounds, get our act together, and figure out how we can best combat the rightward drift that's afflicting our nation. Alas, I fear Dubya will do much of the heavy lifting for us, by running the nation further into the ground over the next four years. Still, we gotta keep on keeping on, y'all. I do not believe this darkness will endure.

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.

Interrupting my usual enjoyment of the Sunday NYT crossword this past week was the magazine's cover story, in which conservative media darling David Brooks tried to outline a new "progressive conservatism" for 2008. Given my interest, historical and otherwise, in reviving progressivism in any form, I applaud Brooks for giving it the ole college try here. But this piece suffers from a couple of serious problems.

For one, there's not much "new" here. Writers like Michael Sandel have already thoroughly outlined this project, the case for a Hamiltonian revival was done better in Michael Lind's Hamilton's Republic, and even George Will anticipated much of Brooks's argument on government, culture, and fostering independence twenty years ago with Statecraft as Soulcraft.

More problematic, Brooks seems totally unacquainted with his own party. "[A]lmost every leading official acknowledges that we should have as much of a welfare state as we can afford." Oh, really? On education, "[m]ore and more conservatives understand that local control means local monopolies and local mediocrity." Coulda fooled me. "Most Republicans, happily or not, have embraced a significant federal role in education." Well, somebody should tell these guys.

I don't want to harsh on Brooks too much, because at least he's trying to make the case for something close to a progressive resurgence ("But through much of American history there has always been a third tradition, now dormant, which believes in limited but energetic government in the name of social mobility and national union.") But first he's gotta realize that he's standing on the shoulders of giants here, and should say as much. And, more importantly, if we really wants to see a return to progressivism, he's probably looking in the wrong party. As Bill Moyers recently and eloquently restated, progressivism was ultimately a reaction against the corporate domination of politics that afflicted the Gilded Age, and somehow that doesn't seem to bother the current GOP too much. Dubya and Rove apparently aspire to be William McKinley and Mark Hanna respectively, and the closest thing the GOP had to a TR is now gleefully prostrating himself before his corporate overlords. So, we're probably going to have to search elsewhere for our Teddys, Woodrows, and Crolys these days.

"[O]n close examination, the accounts of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth prove to be riddled with inconsistencies. In many cases, material offered as proof by these veterans is undercut by official Navy records and the men's own statements. Several of those now declaring Mr. Kerry 'unfit' had lavished praise on him, some as recently as last year." The Times ably dissects the Swift Veterans smear-job, complete with a spiffy graphic linking its moneymen to Dubya. "Records show that the group received the bulk of its initial financing from two men with ties to the president and his family - one a longtime political associate of Mr. Rove's, the other a trustee of the foundation for Mr. Bush's father's presidential library."

"[H]ere's what you really need to know about them. They're funded by hundreds of thousands of dollars from a Republican contributor out of Texas. They're a front for the Bush campaign. And the fact that the President won't denounce what they're up to tells you everything you need to know. He wants them to do his dirty work." After remaining relatively quiet about the Swift Veteran Liars (whose falsifications are now contradicted by military records as well) in the early going, John Kerry finally returns fire at the man behind the curtain, George W. Bush. (Or would that be Karl Rove? Well, you get the picture.)

So, in an attempt to appease the stark raving Right, Dubya now wants a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Good God, what a colossally stupid idea. Since when did it become "conservative" to encode goofy prejudices into our founding document? And can someone please explain to me what jurisdiction the federal government has over the ecclesiastical institution of marriage anyway? Ridicky-goddamn-diculous. Surely Bush and Rove can find some other way to get out their base besides threatening to tinker with the United States Constitution.

As it turns out, I was able to make it to the John Edwards event on campus this morning, and, all in all, I'd give him a B+. He both read and rushed through the first half of his remarks, which involved some new formulation of his trade policy (more on that in a second), and I found his opening lines particularly ham-handed and speechwriterly. "I know y'all have been waiting for a Son of the South to come to NYC...A-Rod," he said (and I'm paraphrasing.) "Well, I'm not A-Rod, but Wisconsin proved one thing: I can close!" Um, ok, but A-Rod is a shortstop and all, not a closer.

Anyway, nitpicking aside, Edwards improved measurably once he put the paper down and got into the rhythm of his "Two Americas" stump speech, which he'd clearly delivered many times. There were moments, however, when he definitely could have embellished his standard schtick, given the crowd. Edwards talked about how he was a lonely, legal David often going up and winning cases against a Goliath-sized team of corporate lawyers, a biographical stat which probably plays great in the Heartland. It went flat here, though, perhaps because the many law students in the auditorium seemed confused by his remarks: But we want to be those well-paid corporate shills!

Still, Edwards came off extremely polished and personable, and he definitely got the crowd on his side, even when he was blindsided by a sneak "Campaign on AIDS!" protest on the dais behind him. Several members of the VIP crowd unveiled red-ribbon shirts and began chanting right in the middle of his biographical portion (In fact, I could've sworn it was right after he gave the "son of a millworker" line, which was a clever signal to choose, if nothing else.) Edwards gave them a moment, asked the crowd to applaud the "activism of these young people," calmly told a heckler he'd address their point after finishing his bio, and then said a few positive words about fighting AIDS at home and abroad (A critical world issue to be sure, but not a particularly controversial one in this day and age...c'mon, y'all, this isn't 1988. And why try to derail a candidate who is politically sympathetic to your cause, particularly when Karl Rove is across town?) At any rate, no harm no foul for Team Edwards: He navigated this potentially rocky shoal extremely successfully, although I presume some advance guy or gal was given the serious what-for soon thereafter.

As for the trade stuff, I liked where he was going at first, but he eventually seem to fall back on the fair trade side of the usual dichotomy. As I see it, the problem isn't free trade itself per se as much as the loss of American jobs, as well as the ugly spectacle of corporations firing tons of US workers only to turn right around and offer up a fat dividend. Edwards obliquely mentioned this formulation, then fell back on tax breaks for "good" corporations and the trouble with NAFTA. My feeling is, if you want to stop this kind of behavior, there needs to be more stick and less carrot. Hit business where it hurts: Tax the heck out of (or even, God forbid, disallow) corporate dividends that occur in the same fiscal year as the downsizing of X number of American jobs. Simply put, if you can't afford to pay your workers anymore, you damn well shouldn't be paying dividends to stockholders. Edwards came close to saying thus, but then fell back into the old free trade/fair trade rut, which to my mind is a bit like shouting into the wind. If you want to change corporate behavior, focus on corporate behavior...don't blame the increasingly irreversible trend of globalization.

At any rate, all in all Edwards came off quite well, although not as inspiring or Clintonesque as I would've originally liked. He's definitely got a great future in the party and in American politics, and he'd no doubt make a solid contender in this election season against the likes of Dubya (or Dick Cheney.)

A CIA inquiry delves into the Bush administration to ascertain which [Karl Rove]Dubya flunky[/Karl Rove] was motivated by petty revenge and political calculation to compromise the identity of an agent. Just like the Bushies to play political games with both our collective and individual security...Hopefully the Agency will get to the bottom of this White House felony more thoroughly than they did WMDgate.

Fredo, you're my brother and I love you. But don't ever take sides against the family again...ever. Actually, Frankie Pentangeli (of the roman bath) is probably a better Godfather reference in this case. Either way, former Bush appointee John DiIiluio is forced to take a dive after making anti-Rove statements in Esquire.

Looks like Iraq or the economy isn't keeping him too busy. As it turns out, Rove and Dubya are using the White House for midterm partisan purposes in unprecedented fashion. Even NASA's got in on the act, and what the hell has Bush done for NASA?

Karl Rove expands his domestic hegemony over the Dubya White house.