Did you ever notice?

The most common words in any story about Bush's approval ratings in the past year are "all-time low," or some variant. Case in point:

In the aftermath of the latest crisis to confront the White House, Bush's overall job approval rating has fallen to 39 percent, the lowest of his presidency in Post-ABC polls. Barely a third of Americans -- 34 percent -- think Bush is doing a good job ensuring high ethics in government, which is slightly lower than President Bill Clinton's standing on this issue when he left office.

And you know what's great? There are all these stories now about how Bush must "chart a recovery." I haven't read them all, but I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that most if not all of them are full of theories about spin, and spin about theories. And very few of them suggest the one thing he might do which could actually help him "chart a recovery," because it's simply not in his constitution: Stop being unethical.

ETA: Reddhedd in firedoglake has read more of them than I have, and written a good entry summarizing them. To summarize her summary, Bush is like a man at a poker table looking all around for a card that will help him fill his hand. But the dealer keeps saying, "no help."

After all, to who or what can he look? The vice-president? No help. He's tainted. Unified party support, the faith of the faithful? No help. Bush blew that with Miers, and I remain skeptical that he'll get it back. Rove? No help. Bush is pissed at Rove for either lying to him, screwing up a perfectly good evil scheme, or both. Congress? No help. Bush's staunchest defenders in congress have their own worries right now-and they can read poll numbers as well as we can if not better. Which brings me to: Spinning the indictment as partisan criminalization of politics? No help. People aren't buying it.

Later in the original item:

The survey also found that nearly seven in 10 Americans consider the charges against Libby to be serious. A majority -- 55 percent -- said the decision of Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald to bring charges against Libby was based on the facts of the case, while 30 percent said he was motivated by partisan politics.

"One thing you can't ever, ever do even if you're a regular person is lie to a grand jury," said Brad Morris, 48, a registered independent and a field representative for a lumber company who lives in Nashua, N.H.

Finally, a paragraph that virtually made me rub my eyes in disbelief. See if the same thing jumps out at you as it did at me.

Taken together, the findings represent a serious blow to a White House already reeling from the politically damaging effects of the slow government response to Hurricane Katrina, the continuing bloodshed in Iraq, the ongoing criticism of its since-repudiated claims that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and the bungled nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

"Since-repudiated." Finally! Reporters who acknowledge the evidence (when it's blatantly-overwhelming) and don't get caught up in the "republicans said/Democrats said" trap. It's about frickin' time.

Never ending or beginning, On an ever spinning wheel

The News Blog has a link to a transcript of Fitzgerald's press conference, and a lengthy quote from the beginning. This seems like as good a time as any to tell you my current favorite "this probably won't happen--but what if?" theory.

I came up with it after hearing somebody on Larry King this morning saying that Fitzgerald's performance had been so impressive, that if his case was as strong, he was sure to be a nominee for the Attorney General someday.

Well, why not now? After all, what are two problems that the administration wants to go away, or at least make as better as they can right now? Fitzgerald and a replacement nominee for Miers.

And let's remember that before Bush's stunning--and not in a good way--choice of Miers, much of the speculation had focused on Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. So: Bush nominates Gonzales to the Supreme Court, and asks Fitzgerald to be the new Attorney General.

Co-option, baby.

Oh, relax--it almost certainly won't happen. It's too obvious a bribe and an attempt to save Bush's sorry ass, for one thing. For another, Fitzgerald looks too much like Gary Cooper in a Frank Capra movie right now to accept it if it did.

And granted, the rationale for Miers's withdrawal would seem to preclude Gonzales as a candidate as well. Bush said:

"It is clear that senators would not be satisfied until they gained access to internal documents concerning advice provided during her tenure at the White House, disclosures that would undermine a president's ability to receive candid counsel"

So clearly, this half-baked scheme is what he should not do. But...can anyone among you say you think this president isn't capable of doing exactly the opposite of what he should do, let alone what he's said he'll do?

Just think about it as you read the next paragraphs.

In the "the GOP is turning on each other like runner-up beauty queens" department, Steve from TNG concludes:

Keep in mind that Libby is a lawyer. In addition to being broke, he faces disbarment, which means he doesn't make any more money, ever. That is a vice on his balls which Fitzgerald is using like Joe Pesci in Casino. Libby has to be shitting himself, seeing how David Brooks wrote him off like a Thai hooker on a business trip. How the new spin is that it's "just one man".

This is another one of those "As previously noted, I don't like Maureen Dowd so much as some of my Liberal comrades do, but..." posts

Good stuff is good stuff. Via Egalia:

"I can say that for the people who work at the C.I.A. and work at other places, they have to expect that when they do their jobs that classified information will be protected," [Mr. Fitzgerald] said, adding: "They run a risk when they work for the C.I.A. that something bad could happen to them, but they have to make sure that they don't run the risk that something bad is going to happen to them from something done by their own fellow government employees."

But what we really want to know, now that we have the bare bones of who said what to whom in the indictment, is what they were all thinking there in that bunker and how that hothouse bred the idea that the way out of their Iraq problems was to slime their critics instead of addressing the criticism. What we really want to know, if Scooter testifies in the trial, and especially if he doesn't, is what Vice did to create the spidery atmosphere that led Scooter, who seemed like an interesting and decent guy, to let his zeal get the better of him.

This administration's grand schemes always end up as the opposite. Officials say they're promoting national security when they're hurting it; they say they're squelching terrorists when they're breeding them; they say they're bringing stability to Iraq when the country's imploding. (The U.S. announced five more military deaths yesterday.)

And the most dangerous opposite of all: W. was listening to a surrogate father he shouldn't have been listening to, and not listening to his real father, who deserved to be listened to.

We pause now for an unpaid political anouncement

Credit: http://www.allhatnocattle.net/10-28-05_sword-swallowers.htm

In Other Words...(Libby indicted)

Okay, this is going to be something of a link festival, which I normally don't like to do. They're not nearly as much fun as an orgasm festival. But this is a big story, so...

Blogenlust offers Two Points on Libby, the first of which is:

1) Before joining the White House in 2000, Libby was the managing partner of a Washington law firm. He knows the law and he knows the consequences of perjury, obstruction of justice and making false statements. If the allegations are true, it raises the question of what Libby was hiding that he'd rather risk the consequences of obstructing and lying to a federal grand jury. In other words, if there was nothing to cover up or hide, it would seem unusual that a seasoned lawyer like Libby would put himself in a position to be indicted on these charges.

Think Progress quotes Washington Post reporter Jim VandeHei:

Rove Investigation Will Be Completed In Weeks, Not Months
More details on the Rove/Fitzgerald dealings from Washington Post reporter Jim VandeHei on MSNBC:

We have more detail on what’s happening with Karl Rove. We know that something happened in the last couple of days that Rove’s legal team was able to provide to Fitzgerald, that according to one Rove associate, “gave Fitzgerald pause” about charging Rove. They think that within the next couple of weeks, not months, that the Rove part of this investigation will be wrapped up, and that it is still centered on whether he provided false statements. It’s not clear what exactly transpired. There has been this flurry of conversations between Rove and his team and Fitzgerald over the last week, with Rove trying to convince him, like, “Look, I may have forgotten some things but I did not lie.”

From the Republican side of things, Below The Beltway picks up GOP talking point number one: Trivialize the indictment:

In other words, like Martha Stewart, Libby was indicted for lying, not for the underlying act being investigated.

Actually, BTB blogger Doug provides an answer to his own statement a little bit lower in his post when he quotes Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid:

This case is bigger than the leak of highly classified information. It is about how the Bush White House manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to bolster its case for the war in Iraq and to discredit anyone who dared to challenge the president.

Lower still, Doug quotes Patrick Fitzgerald with what he thinks is

Patrick Fitzgerald's response to Harry Reid:

This indictment is not about the war. Not about the propriety of the war. This is stripped of that debate and focused on a narrow transaction...

I think it's just as likely if not more so that Fitzgerald was speaking in his by-the-books, special council capacity. I also note that he only said this indictment is not about the war...

Safely back among the Democrats, John observes something in AmericaBlog about GOP talking point number two:

Republican hack Joseph di Genova is now saying on TV that the indictment "proves" that no one in the White House knew Valerie Plame was an undercover agent so they've been exonerated.

You know someone is CIA.

You also know that you have no idea WHAT this person's status is - covert or overt agent.

So Scooter and Rove did not know for sure whether Valerie Plame was an undercover CIA agent, yet they outed her anyway. What di Genova seems to be saying, and any other Bush defenders would be saying, is that it's okay to out a CIA agent so long as you make super duper sure that you DON'T find out that agent's status, overt or covert.

In other words, if you want to out CIA agents and risk the lives of countless Americans while our country is at war, just make sure you don't inquire first as to whether it might be a problem. So long as you're negligent, you're a Republican hero.

Let me just add a couple of things here before moving on. I watched about an hour of NBC, CNN and CBS News this morning. Just enough to remind me why I don't do that. I swear, one of things I think I'd do if I had a TARDIS is go back and tell Ted Turner that a 24-hour news channel is a terrible idea. I miss the old days, when we had one, half-hour news program at the end of the day, so most of it had to be actually news. Instead, we just get people talking and talking...

Also, anyone making the "We didn't know! How could we know?" defense always reminds me of what Will Durst said when Bush, Sr. denied knowledge of Iran-Contra: Either he knew...and he's a doofus...or he didn't know...and he's a doofus. Ignorance is no defense, especially involving people whose lives are at risk.

Okay, via TGW, Raw Story is reporting that Fitzgerald is pursuing more serious charges for Rove:

“This investigation is not yet over,” one of the lawyers in the case said. “You must keep in mind that people like Mr. Rove are still under investigation. Rather than securing an indictment on perjury charges against Mr. Rove Mr. Fitzgerald strongly believes he can convince the grand jury that he broke other laws.” . . .

Shakespeare's Sister has her impression of Fitzgerald's press conference, and his direct response to a talking point:

He made it perfectly clear that these charges are extremely serious. When some clever reporter asked him about the GOP talking points about these being “technical” charges, he came out swinging: “I’ll be blunt—that talking point won’t fly… The truth is the engine of our justice system… It is a very, very serious matter that no one should take lightly…

Okay, back to the Bushies. Eugene Volokh wonders: So what's a Bush Administration official supposed to do? He's impishly chiding someone from TalkLeft for complaining that Rove might avoid serious punishment by "flipping."

I've heard people condemn the Bush Administration for placing too much premium on loyalty over other virtues -- but surely few (on the Left or on the Right) would think that Administration officials should place such a premium on loyalty that they refuse to testify about others' criminal conduct?

It seems likely to me Volokh knows perfectly well that the bigger point is, if Rove did indeed break other, more serious laws, it will not satisfy justice if he avoids punishment like this. Oh well, if VandeHei is right, we'll know in a few more weeks (sigh).

In War and Piece, Laura asks,

...how in the world could Libby have lied so blatantly, have misled so blatantly, without realizing given the scope of this investigation that he would get caught? Did he think the investigation would go away? That his colleagues would participate in the cover up? It's hard to know what he was thinking, but Kevin Drum's 'bottom line' analysis of what happened sounds right to me: Libby invented a compelling false narrative and just stuck to it.

And finally, from The Sideshow:

You know Libby=Cheney & Rove, you just know it, and these three charges are not nearly all they should be hit for. Novak said two people spilled the beans to him, and Karl has admitted talking. There's lots left on the table. And Raw Story is saying that Karl was offered a perjury deal but turned it down.

Whew! Okay, so these are the big questions yet to be answered to my satisfaction:

Who was/is Libby protecting?
Will Cheney be hit?
What's next for Rove?
Will they be able to weasel their way out of it?

Tune in tomorrow for another exciting episode of The Mayberry Machiavellis...it'd be a sitcom if it weren't so tragic.

Please tip your blogger generously

If you look over to the right there and click the View my complete profile link you'll find, among other things, a link to my Amazon.com Wish List. If you're amazed at the quality of posts on this site (I know I am), please consider making a small donation to the Buy Ben Those Books And CDs He Can't Score Through The Ink 19 Gig Fund. I thank you.

Say what you will about the south...

The people of Chapel Hill, NC know how to party.

The orgasm festival is going to take place on the campus of UNC-Chapel Hill on Thursday, November 10th. There are going to be "pin the finger on the clitoris" and “locate the g-spot” games followed by contests to see how quickly and properly people of both sexes can put condoms on bananas.

Believe it or not, "Dr" Mike "Hoo-hoo dilly" Adams--he of the charming "republican girls are better-looking than Democratic girls" theory--is rather irritated by this. He writes:

Jessica Polka, an executive board member for the co-sponsor of the event, was recently quoted as saying that “We also have the goal of trying to work toward fighting the social stigma against female sexuality.” In other words, she wants college women to become whores without being ostracized.

Yes, because only a whore enjoys a good orgasm, having their clitoris fingered, or g-spot located. Or cares enough about their health to want to know how to put on a condom quickly and properly.

While the UNC administration is undoubtedly thrilled that these coeds are turning out to be nymphomaniacs rather than intellectuals, not all of the blame can be placed on UNC.

Yes, because if a woman expresses (or probably even experiences) sexual desire, she is automatically an irrational nymphomaniac.

Indeed, FSU may have gotten the idea for their “orgasm festival” from the University of California, San Diego.

It's times like this I'm really glad I was born in California, and not North Carolina, Ohio or Tennessee.

Holy-!

Did you hear about the White House messing with The Onion? It's about this. And this is their response.

Well, you've heard the big news...

...everybody's talking about it...George "Sulu" Takei coming out as a homosexual, of course. What'd you think I was talking about? But seriously: I'd heard tittle to the effect that Takei was gay years ago. When you live in the SF Bay Area, few gay celebrities are news.

But thinking this morning about why it's taken him this long, I was remembering one or two things I know about him from reading his intriguing autobiography. He's a man of an age when this sort of thing simply wasn't talked about. Not only that, he has direct experience of being persecuted simply because of who he is...he and his family were in internment camps in WW2.

He was only a child (4-8), which has to put the fear of god into you.

On a personal note, I've always kind of liked Takei; you didn't get to see enough of it in Star Trek (with rare exceptions) but anyone who's ever seen him at a convention knows he is a very personally charming man. And if you ever got a chance to see him in a television production of a play called Year of the Dragon by Frank Chin, you know he has muscles as an actor he almost never got to stretch. It's avalible on videotape at your better stores.

I'm glad, both for himself and for the gay and lesbian community, that he was able to take this step.

You know...this doesn't even seem funny and flip anymore

Just kind of, well, serious and loathsome. So, this will probably be our last game of..."Who Said It?"

..."The reason for not misleading the Congress is a very practical one...It's stupid. It's self-defeating ... Eventually you destroy the president's credibility." ...

Clearly, there is plenty of work to be done if Congress is going to equip itself to play a constructive role in the conduct of U.S. _ U.S. foreign policy in the years ahead. And I fervently hope that future presidents will take away from these hearings one important lesson, that no foreign policy can be effective for long without the wholehearted support of the Congress and the American people. It is often easier to develop a policy to be pursued overseas than it is to muster the political support here at home to sustain it. Covert action has its place in the kind of world we live in, but it is no substitute for the kind of effective political leadership that brings around a recalcitrant Congress and persuades the American people of the importance of supporting those who share our faith in democracy.

Now, who said it? Go see. And see if it doesn't just make you want to spit on them.

What's next?

Oliver Willis has a short post (this is the whole thing):

It’s clear with the knifing of Miers that the far right has kicked the butt of the Bush White House. The next nominee will in all likelihood be a hard right ideologue who thinks Roe is a myth and civil rights protections a work of fiction. One analysis on tv said that it would take the senate a month to prep for the next nominee which would push the entire process past the holiday hiatus… and into the election year.

Is 2006 going to be the year where we fight over a far right power grab on the American courts? Does Bush want that? The reason the right has to nominate people like Roberts, Miers, and even Bush himself is because America simply does not embrace the right-wing crazies.

I dunno; I'm still inclined to think the next nominee will be another moderate Republican. Someone too right for me and my pagan friends but not nearly right enough for the far right. Just maybe...a qualified one this time.

Oh people, people, people...

Kesher Talk ("News and views from a hawkish liberal Jewish perspective") has some unkind things to say about an interview with Joe Wilson that appeared in my local paper. To wit that he was being "ironic":

“The fact that this may become a crisis of governance should please no one,” Wilson said at a private hotel reception before speaking in downtown Seattle Wednesday evening.

Yes, that is a very proper and admirable sentiment. No doubt that is why the Dems, taking their clues from him, have christened Indictment Day, which could come any day now, as a new holiday, called Fitzmas. In the sense of isn’t it wonderful…it’s beginning to look a lot like Fitzmas. And of course some people are worried that the Grinch will steal Fitzmas this year. In which case, their schadenfreude level won’t be met.

People...I'll say it slowly. Wilson. Was. Right. In the almost three years since our wrongheaded invasion of Iraq, that has only become more clear: Wilson was right. And because he was right, men at the highest levels of our goverment put out a "hit" on him and his family.

If those of us who belong (more or less) to the Democratic party are seen to be enjoying the idea that people who do wrong might actually be punished for it, well, it's not because we're taking our "clues" (they meant cues) from Wilson or anybody else.

It's because that's what happens in the America we believe in and have been missing for five years; what some hawks liked to call "accountability" when it was about sex. It's not schadenfreude, it's relief.

How do we break this to him?

Jessica at Feministing found an absolutely classic news item from Austin, Texas. It seems that a Pastor there, Ryan Rush, is peeved that the Klan is coming to town. Well, we can certainly understand that--nobody wants the Klan to come to town.

Even (especially) when they're there to support the same thing you support. See, the Klan is coming to support a homophobic gay marriage amendment...which Pastor Rush also supports.

Rush said that a group that would come in that is characterized as hateful and bigoted is not welcome in this city. He said he doesn't want the Klan as a partner on any cause.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: If you're against same-sex marriage, you are a hateful bigot. There is no compromise. Again, I encourage you to embrace it. Get yourself fitted for a sheet and just accept yourself now.

Ain't nobody that Spies Like Us (and vice versa)

Update: Steve Gilliard has a couple of interesting posts today, one serious, one not so much (but not entirely unserious either). First, he writes a thoughtful answer to a question about why he thinks the GOP is-really-falling apart. He begins:

The reason I think this could be the end of the GOP is very simple: corruption from all corners. You have the Majority Leader of the House, the defacto speaker, the Majority Leader of the Senate and the White House all facing criminal investigation.

This is the kind of thing which will fracture the party. It becomes easier to jump ship when the ship is on fire. Bush is a miserable manager, and with Cheney under intense scrutiny and if half of what Fitzgerald is reported to be up to, not only is he not finished, but Cheney is clearly in his sights. What you have now is an unpopular, and I believe emotionally unstable president, who basically let Cheney make all of his key decisions, who relied on Rove daily, facing the loss of his support team.

What is the ripple effect of that? The President can no longer raise money for candidates, neither can DeLay and Frist isn't all that popular, any legal troubles will cripple him as well.

Read the rest. Second, a more fun post theorizing that:

Americans like spies.

We may not fully trust special operators, we may not fully appreciate the FBI, but Americans love spies. Even the most diehard leftist can pick up Alan Furst and be carried away to 1930's Paris or read about the cold war machinations of George Smiley and his battles against Karla and the Moscow Circus.

The reason the GOP has been desperate to minimize Valerie Plame and her career is as simple as a trip to Blockbuster or Barnes and Noble.

In the American imagination, spies are heroes. From the suave Scotsman James Bond to the harried old school spies of John LeCarre, to the quick and sly spies of Len Deighton to the weary spies of Graham Greene, the spy is a hero in our imagination. He is the man at the end of the rope who lives.

When it becomes clear that the Bush Administration really did betray spies, all hell will break loose. While most Americans have little idea of what espionage is, a grimy business of betrayal, blackmail and greed, they know that when they go to the movies, they've seen everyone from Brad Pitt to Michael Douglas play spies. They know James Bond is the modern Western hero, suave and deadly.

Two to the right, two to the left

Okay, here's my favorite (so far) responses to Miers' withdrawal. First, from the Republican Llama Butchers (and, politics aside, I like that logo):

I've been trying all this time to analogize Dubya's pick of Miers to that scene in Bull Durham where Crash tells Nuke to hit the mascot on purpose in order to throw off the batter. After Nuke does so, Crash looks up at the batter, shrugs and says, "I dunno where it's goin'," and gives him an evil laugh. The next pitch, of course, is a perfect heater that catches the batter flat-footed.

I still hope this is what the White House had in mind, because the alternative explanation - that this was a genuinely accidental wild pitch - is rather unpleasant to contemplate.

In either case, if Dubya does bring the heat now, this whole issue vanishes. The base will rally round.

See, this is what Democrats mean when we say Republicans are "in denial." We see a president whose failures have all caught up with him in one year. From WMD to the Plame scandal to being anti-torture unless it's us doing the torturing to a diminished and depleted military.

It's no secret that I'm a Democrat, but I'd think even Republicans would be wondering if Presidents ever recover from years as bad as Bush has had. But no, what they see is an evil genius who probably needed to be taken down a peg and reminded what his base is, but who now can get up off the mat and make everything all right again.

Next, we have Brutally Honest, also right-wing, with an odd headline: Miers retires. I think the blogger means, "withdraws." But he further goes on to say:

It's said that one's character can be defined as the byproduct of how mistakes are handled. President Bush made a mistake with the Miers nomination. I'm hoping that his next choice will be properly credentialed, a strict constructionist and someone who conservative can not only get behind but get in the face of those on the left who will attempt to block the appointment.

Now is not the time to put forth a nominee that the left will embrace. Now is the time for a nominee to be named that will challenge the weak-kneed Republicans in the Senate to grow a spine.

My expectations of the Senate living up to that challenge are low sadly but much higher is the hope that President Bush will make amends.

So let me get this straight. You're pinning...your hopes...on how George...W...Bush...handles his mistakes. Um...how to put this...based on the President Bush that we liberals have been watching for five years...I wouldn't go uncorking that champaigne just yet.

I know we live in different worlds; in ours, President Bush does not admit failures well. My best guess, in my admittedly nonexpert opinion, is that he will put forth a nominee not much better, from the Republican POV, than Miers.

Good old Alberto "Geneva convention? What Geneva convention?" Gonzales seems a likely possibility...

And now here we are on the left, where Scott Shields writes:

Miers Withdraws: White House Bows To Far Right
That should be the headline of every newspaper in the nation tomorrow morning, as that's exactly what happened.
The only way for Bush to prove to the nation that he's not a complete and total hypocrite is to nominate a moderate or a moderate conservative. The 'Withdraw Miers' crowd can talk about qualifications all they want, but they have made far too many public statements about her lack of far right credentials to credibly claim that she was pushed out for anything but failing their right wing litmus test. Witness Michelle Malkin openly admitting that the 'documents' excuse was little more than window dressing (emphasis mine, of course):

Exit strategy hinged on refusal to release privileged White House documents. (Ed Morrissey and Charles Krauthammer called it.) Whatever. We know the real reasons. Now, onto a candidate that conservatives can be proud of, okay?

There's more on MyDD.

ETA: "TChris" also has some good things to say:

The president announced his intent to select a replacement for Harriet Miers in a “timely manner.” Miers was torpedoed by extremist critics in the president’s own party, raising the fear of an appeasement pick.

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) cautioned Democrats to be careful what they wished for. "For those who were concerned that Harriet Miers was too conservative, you should not be too sanguine about this," Obama said.

Dick Durbin warned that the president is “almost certain to turn to a nominee that is embraced by the conservative wing of the Republican Party.” Harry Ried cautioned the president not to travel that road:

Harry Reid, D-Nevada, blamed "the radical right wing of the Republican Party" for ending Miers' nomination. "Apparently, Ms. Miers did not satisfy those who want to pack the Supreme Court with rigid ideologues," Reid said.

Again, there's more here at TalkLeft.

The things you find in conservative blogs

Hey,

I'm reading blogs from both the left and the right about Bush's defeat on Miers, preparing to write a post. That'll be along shortly, but in the meantime, I just had to share with you this dandy photo I found at a "patriots" blog.
Clever, isn't it? Especially when conservative bloggers are lining up to enlist. Fucking chickenhawks. Especially in light of yesterday's post about the liberal Democrat college student who is doing his duty as a Marine. In contrast to the "I can serve my country better from here" republicans.

Just 'cause I feel like it

Some women, and one or two things, I think are beautiful...

I'm not following this

So there's this fella named Alex Cornell du Houx; 21-years-old, a college senior. Alex is development director for the College Democrats of America and co-president of the Maine College Democrats.

He and his family feel the current war in Iraq is unjust. Nevertheless, in little over a month, he will be leaving for Iraq. As a Marine.

While Cornell du Houx has actively rallied against many of President Bush's policies, he feels that his involvement in the Marines is not a conflict of interest.

"Regardless of my opinions regarding the war in Iraq, it is my duty as a U.S. Marine to serve and I am ready and willing to do my job to its fullest extent," he said.

Follow this link and read the rest of the news item; it's impressive. I don't know about you, but to me, this is the kind of young man about whom words like "Godspeed" and "good luck" should be used, if not yet "hero."

Ah, but we have reckoned without the much-talked about character of the College Republicans, who feel it is not enough for him to be serving his country in a war they won't dirty their hands with; he should stop opposing our president as well:

Daniel Schuberth, a leader of the Bowdoin College Republicans and College Republican national secretary, said, "I applaud Mr. Houx for his service, just as I applaud any other soldier who is brave enough to take up arms in defense of his country. I find it troubling, however, that one of the most vocal opponents of our president, our country and our mission in Iraq has chosen to fight for a cause he claims is wrong. Mr. Houx's rhetoric against the war on terror places him in agreement with the most radical fringes of the Democratic Party, and I am left to question his logic and motivation."

Un-fucking-belivable.

the genuine article

From an unidentified author in The New Yorker, long-ago:

Every so often, though, we're stopped dead by a crisis that we recognize at once as the genuine article; we recognize it not by its size (false crisis can be made to look as big as real ones) but because in the course of it, for a measurable, anguished period-sometimes only minutes, sometimes hours, rarely as much as a day-nothing happens.

From Murray Waas, today:

As we await word from the federal grand jury hearing the CIA leak case (and despite all your phone calls and emails, I really don't know... or pretend to know much more than anyone else), I am reminded of these words written in his diary by Leonard Garment, an aide to Richard Nixon on Christmas Day, 1972, when James McCord was indicted for his role in the Watergate break-in.

Garment was in turn quoting Jose Ortega y Gasset: "We do not know what is happening, and that is what happening."

What? What?

David Neiwert found a column by Mike "Hoo-hoo dilly" Adams, doctor of humor, in which he says that conservative women are better-looking than liberal women. Yes. And not only that:

The public discussion of this issue will help Republicans answer some important questions. For example: "Should we assume that being gay often causes one to be a Democrat? Isn't it more likely that the lack of exposure to attractive women causes Democrats to be gay?" And "Do Democratic women consider compliments in the workplace to be sexual harassment simply because they rarely hear them?"

But, of course, it isn't necessary at this time to explore the many intellectual questions that flow from the observation that our women are more attractive than theirs. Instead, we must immediately begin to exploit the issue for political gain. And the Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute is doing just that by publishing a calendar featuring, among others, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, and Shemane Nugent.

Now, granted, the most Republican woman I've ever known happens to be a pretty girl with a great rack, but I've always considered that to be a meaningless coincidence. Although, if we're not going to limit ourselves to real Republicans, there's always Ainsley Hayes.

Still, perhaps he's right. Maybe women Democrats are just dogs.

Women like Rosario Dawson and Portia de Rossi.

Yes, I think we all know where they'd end up on a "hot or not" list, especially when compared to the likes of Michelle Malkin. I'm convinced; I'm switching parties.

ETA: And in a related entry, Shakespeare's Sister writes today about a new theory about why Women Aren't Funny. My all-time favorite quote on this subject comes from one of the original woman writers for Saturday Night Live, Anne Beatts:

Men feel threatened by women being funny...because they think the ultimate woman's joke is "How big is it?"

I know I constantly feel threatened by performers like Amber Benson & Alyson Hannigan, Katy Sagall, Susan Sarandon and pretty much any woman working from an Aaron Sorkin script. But it's true, on a personal note, a woman I know with nice comic timing was definitely threatening to me.

So much so, she was only one of the best lovers I ever had.