Fan-fucking-tastic

From War and Piece:

Why did Al-Libi, the fabricator whose discredited claims about Saddam training al-Qaeda were amply cited by the Bush administration in its case for war, tell the Bush administration what it wanted to hear? Because he was tortured. From Newsweek:

....Al-Libi's capture, some sources say, was an early turning point in the government's internal debates over interrogation methods. FBI officials brought their plea to retain control over al-Libi's interrogation up to FBI Director Robert Mueller. The CIA station chief in Afghanistan, meanwhile, appealed to the agency's hawkish counterterrorism chief, Cofer Black. He in turn called CIA Director George Tenet, who went to the White House. Al-Libi was handed over to the CIA. "They duct-taped his mouth, cinched him up and sent him to Cairo" for more-fearsome Egyptian interrogations, says the ex-FBI official. "At the airport the CIA case officer goes up to him and says, 'You're going to Cairo, you know. Before you get there I'm going to find your mother and I'm going to f--- her.' So we lost that fight." (A CIA official said he had no comment.)...

Torture produced bad information that was used by the administration to make the case for war. The lawyers pushing the torture have been promoted to the very top positions of the US government (David Addington), or given cushey offices at the American Enterprise Institute (John Yoo). The Congressional oversight committees have been way too compliant, with the chairman of the Senate Intel committe voting to support Cheney's demands that the torture continue.

I don't know why, but this seems like a good time to mention that two recent polls have shown that if Bush lied in making his case for war a majority of Americans want his faux-macho, all hat and no cattle, worse of a wimp than his father ever was, incompetence-rewarding, sluglike ass impeached!

I only wanted something else to do but hang around

Here's the first post I've seen on the France riots that I felt gave me a convincing sense of perspective; it's from a blog called the European Tribune. It begins:

One of my aunts lives in one of the cités in the suburbs where the "new Intifada" is taking place - the new "Baghdad on the Seine". Her building suffered a fire yesterday night, started by the usual suspects in the neighborhood (they blew up two motorbikes in a local on the ground floor), ignored for almost one hour by the police and firemen. The solidarity of the inhabitants helped to evacuate everybody, and provide temporary shelter while the fire raged. Most people went back home the same evening as the fire was doused eventually.

A few cars were also burnt in the neighborood, but hardly more than usual. It's one of those things that happen and that you don't really worry about if you live there. This week, it goes on TV if you do it, so of course more are tempted to do so (last night saw 1300 cars burn, up from 900 the previous night), including in provincial cities. There is no coordination of anything, it's just mostly copycats by bored kids who are suddenly getting a lot of attention.

Read the whole thing. This may be a third "trival comment about a story that's not at all trivial," but I couldn't help thinking of "Suburbia" by Pet Shop Boys when I read the above.

It's on the front page of the papers
This is their hour of need
Where's a policeman when you need one
To blame the colour TV?

...when did he know he knew it, and who's going to help him now?

Via TGW, The New York Times has a story asking-finally-just how much Bush knew about "Plamegate." But this is my favorite part right here:

Behind the scenes, Cheney is feeding Bush's instinct never to give ground when under attack, White House advisers say, despite rising concern among Republicans that the president doesn't realize the depth of his political trouble.

Friends say he has decided that he will never catch a break from the Democrats or the media--on the CIA case or anything else--so he will govern from the right, as he did on most issues in his first term.

Personally, I feel warmed knowing that Cheney is encouraging such a bunker mentality, because history has shown that it's exactly what presidents need to get themselves out of political trouble.

But if I were ever in a position to speak to Bush "man-to-man," I think I would remind him of something. With sadness--I swear--in my voice, I would remind him that once he did catch a break from the Democrats and the media. And from me.

It was, of course, after 9/11. When we wanted so much, maybe too much, to believe that we had a president who would retaliate against those who had attacked us. When even people as liberal as I am did not believe a president, even one as conservative as he is, could be as unethical as he has shown himself.

But then, that was our mistake. We thought, Republican or Democrat, that we had a president.

And instead, we got him.

I know he's used to second and third chances thanks to the family name and foolish voters--but he's out of them now. And that's what he doesn't get, and that's why Rove can't help him anymore.

And that's why the White House may soon be without Rove, if Time magazine knows anything about what time it is...

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.

Come to think of it, I guess when the building can't stand up on its own, that is a good time to fire the archetect.

Despite Rove's flashes of ebullience in recent days and the insistence of friends that he is out of legal jeopardy, several of the most important lawyers who deal with special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald said they saw more clues last week that Fitzgerald is continuing to look into the possibility of charging Rove with lying to investigators or the grand jury or both. If that happens, Rove almost certainly would resign immediately, as did I. Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, when Libby was indicted two weeks ago.

Of course, Bush could score a few points if he fired Rove before the next round of charges...that is, if he actually wanted to "promote ethics"...but again, why am I helping him?

And one last thing. Does anyone else think that this supposed "refresher course" on ethics the White House staff is having is really just practicing being able to say it without laughing?

This seems unlikely

You Are Not Scary

Everyone loves you. Isn't that sweet?

How Scary Are You?

I am hard to please (musically that is ha ha ha)

More music meme categories, courtesy of Bill Sherman:

Favorite Alt-Country Song: None.

So far as I know, I don't know many alt-country songs.

Favorite Cramps Song: None.

Ditto.

Favorite Instrumental (Rock): "Nocturne #2"-Joe Jackson

Okay, I grant you, almost by definition, it's not rock. But I don't care, I love it.

Favorite Kinks Song: "Days"

On a technicality--it is, of course, the Kirsty MacColl version that has my heart.

Favorite Nick Lowe Song: "Cruel to Be Kind"

Yeah, probably.

Favorite One-Hit Wonder:

Oh, man...there's too many to choose from. I'm an '80s music fan, for god's sake and between the Living in Oblivion and Just Can't Get Enough series...

Favorite Post-Punk Song:

To be honest I've never really been sure what "Post-Punk" means. My favorite songs are by groups like My Favorite, Joe Jackson and Naked Eyes, and I don't think they qualify.

Bill chose Joy Divison's "Love Will Tear Us Apart," and I tend to annoy Joy Divison fans by telling them I prefer the Paul Young version. Still do.

Favorite Ramones Song: "Judy Is A Punk"

But only 'cos it's on Keoki's underrated Kill The DJ compliation.

Favorite Otis Redding Song: "(Sittin' On) The Dock Of The Bay"

This is another one of those things where I won't apologize for a seemingly obvious choice. One of the great soul songs of all time--and I've long thought it was about a man considering, and then rejecting suicide.

Favorite Roxy Music Song: "More Than This"

Roxy is a group you'd think I'd like more of than I do considering that they essentially midwived rock and roll as I know it. Bowie, of course, being the inventor. But except for this sensuous song that makes me nostalgic for a time I never really knew given that I was little more than 10 when it came out, no.

And when I say something makes me nostalgic for a time I never really knew, this may or may not be an original thought, but: I think I mean it makes me nostalgic for the adult world I thought existed then.

One of these days maybe I'll do a post about all the songs like this that are on my "need-to-get" list. The ones by groups that I don't like or know enough of to want a whole "greatest hits," but can't find on a good multi-artist compilation, either.

What do I mean by "good" multi-artist compilations? Well, also on this mostly-hypothetical list would be Yes' "Owner Of A Lonely Heart," Toto's "Africa" and Laura Brannigan's "Self-Control." All of these actually appear on two or three of the Grand Theft Auto: Vice City video game soundtracks.

But you understand-I just can't...it's the principle of the thing...

Favorite Steely Dan Song: None.

Walter Becker produced an airy, dreamy toe-tapper for China Crisis in "King In A Catholic Style (Wake Up)", though. And I dig the cover of "King Of The World" that's on Joe Jackson's Summer In The City-Live In New York album.

Favorite Frank Zappa Song: None.

Sorry, not a fan.

And one for Johnny B-

Favorite Alice Cooper song: "He's Back (The Man Behind The Mask)"

Compare and contrast

Think Progress-

2005 Summit of the Americas:


Thousands of demonstrators flooded the streets of this seaside resort Friday chanting “Get out Bush” as the U.S. president sought to promote free trade at a divided Summit of the Americas. Protests turned violent with about 1,000 people shattering shopfronts with clubs and pelting riot police with stones. … Demonstrators took to the streets hours before the summit started, shouting insults about Bush and chanting “Fascist Bush! You are the terrorist!” [AP, 11/4/05]

1998 Summit of the Americas:


At one point, Clinton walked in hazy sunshine down Gran Avenida, a busy commercial street lined with thousands of people, including schoolchildren in blue and white uniforms, many of them chanting “Clinton, Clinton.” A few bystanders chanted “Kennedy,” apparently in reference to the popular former U.S. president. [CNN, 4/16/98]

Not like any of the news media is looking in, but just in case, boys: Bush=unpopular president. Clinton=popular president. Get it? Got it? Good.

All you do to me is...

Mark Evanier has a good post about Al Franken's Air America show and left-wing radio in general. I mostly agree with it, and would add that I think Franken really thought that with his help, the Democrats would sail to success in the 2004 election.

Unfortunately, he hadn't counted on the stupidity of the Democrats, and election night knocked the wind out of him. I still count his appearance on the Sundance Channel that evening as among the saddest things I have ever seen.

Here's Mark:

I liked Al Franken's show its first few months when (I have the feeling) it was all new and exciting to him. I think the filling of three hours per day is getting to the guy and the loss of his co-host has made it more evident that he lacks certain broadcasting skills. Say what you will about Rush but he's been at it for a long time and if he gets bored with his own program -- and I'm sure he does -- he's learned not to let it show. Franken's great as a guest on talk shows and he was especially good with Leno the other night. I've enjoyed his past books and based on this week's New York Times best seller list, I'm obviously not the only one. But there are certain skills one needs to sustain on the radio, especially when you have to fill 15 hours a week, and I don't think Al has them. Maybe he'll make a better senator.

What he said.

Alien vs. Predator

Just caught this movie via HBO on-demand. While of course it can't hold a candle to the first two Aliens movies or even the first Predator, it was more exciting than I'd expected. Or at least more watchable.

My emotional involvement for the Aliens series was nullified by the idiotic decision to kill Newt at the beginning of the third film. And my expectations for the Predator series were never that high. So I was able to enjoy this movie on this basis:

I picked up early on that it was basically a 21st century version of the kind of 1950's science fiction movies beloved by MST3K. Think Rocketship X-M. Surprisingly cheap looking special F/X? Check. Big, strapping white men? Check-although, in a nod to current sensibilities, there's a big strapping black man along for the ride too.

The "shock" ending (which I will not reveal) also answered a question I posed last year in my old blog. I predicted:

Someone, somewhere is going to do a joke about ALIEN VS. PREDATOR that spins them as Democrats vs. Republicans. But which are they?

The end of AVP answers this question. The Republicans are the Aliens. They're bossed around by big queens, enjoy whipping, and do not support a woman's right to choose what she will carry around in her belly.

The Democrats are the Predators. They cloak their real motives in the shadows and although they can be a friend if you have a common enemy, they are extremely stupid. Trust me. If you see the ending, you'll know what I'm talking about.

Whoever wins... We lose.

That's the way to inspire confidence in your staff

From the Washington Post:

According to a memo sent to aides yesterday, Bush expects all White House staff to adhere to the "spirit as well as the letter" of all ethics laws and rules. As a result, "the White House counsel's office will conduct a series of presentations next week that will provide refresher lectures on general ethics rules, including the rules of governing the protection of classified information," according to the memo, a copy of which was provided to The Washington Post by a senior White House aide.

How comforting. The White House staff needs a "refresher course" on ethics. You know, if I were on the White House staff, I think I'd be quitting about now so the secret service didn't have to take me out for screaming at the president.

"I didn't leak classified information, you prick! I'm not breaking my promise to fire those who did. I didn't obstruct justice and risk 30 years in prison just to put your incompetent ass in the oval office for another four years. I'm not keeping a known security risk employed in the White House just because I'm not man enough to make decisions without my "brain." And you're telling me I need a refresher course on ethics? Fuck you."

"I understand that there is a preoccupation by polls by some," the president said. "The way you earn credibility with the American people is to declare an agenda that everybody can understand, an agenda that relates to their lives, and get the job done."

ETA: The Political Teen says something I just knew some conservative was going to say.

Liberals complain that there are no ethics in the White House, and what do they do when the White House tries to promote ethics? They complain again.

Dude, if Bush really wanted to promote ethics he'd have fired Libby and Rove (at a minimum) months ago. It's called actions speak louder than words. And how can announcing to the world that your White House needs a refresher course on ethics not be something for people who oppose you to complain about?

As always, the quick quiz is, what would you be doing if the Clinton White House had made such an announcement? Would you be thanking them for "promoting ethics" or would you be complaining? Uh-huh.

Bush has no credibility with the majority of the American people right now, and this is why: Because they can see what his agenda is, and it's protecting his friends at the cost of getting to the truth.

He is incapable of calling them to task and holding them accountable. And Americans can see that, and Americans understand that. And that's why so few of us believe him, or think he can get the job done.

A trivial comment on a story that is anything but II

This is a photo of an Ohio meeting of Virgina Nazis. But is it just me, or does it look more like the end of a musical number?

"Come on, gang!"

"The day will come when the world is mine, tomorrow belongs, tomorow belongs to me!"

"And now it's springtime for Hitler and Germany..."

Tapping the Tapped

Matthew Yglesias has a couple of good paragraphs about Sam Alito:

One of the more bizarre spectacles in recent days has been the phenomenon of conservative commentators "defending" Sam Alito against liberals' outlandish "distortions" of his record designed to make people think Alito is hostile to abortion rights (today's Charles Krauthammer column, for example). The trouble here is that liberals aren't accusing Alito of being a child molester or something; we're accusing Alito of supporting long-held conservative goals for the judiciary. Krauthammer is on record as deploring Roe v. Wade and calling for it to be overturned. If he believed that Alito was really innocent of the charges against him, he'd be against Alito.

This touches on something I've been talking about here in the past couple days: The way in which conservatives have been campaigning by playing down their conservativism. I suppose you could say the same about some liberals.

Wouldn't it be great if people could just say, this is what I believe, and this is why, and didn't feel they had to tailor their comments for whatever audience?

Ah heh heh...

Via Feministing...

A Dutch designer has created a wall of fake breasts to help male shoppers buy bras that fit their wives or girlfriends.
Wendy Rameckers works at the Piet Zwart Institute for Retail and Design in Rotterdam, reports Het Nieuwsblad.

"Most men have a selective memory," she explained. "They know all about their car, but never seem to know their wife's bra size.

"When trying to buy a sexy bra for their wife or girlfriend, usually they point to other women in the shop or, when asked about size, they say a 'handful'."

The wall consists of rows of silicon breasts in all sizes. By look and touch, male shoppers can work out the right size, she says.

You know it's true, I've had about 11 girlfriends (give-or-take), and I think I only knew the bra size of one of them. And that was just pride--they were 34D, for god's sake (oh, those were the days...)

Americans REALLY want Bush impeached (UPDATED)

The amount of people who want Bush impeached if he lied about why we went to war in Iraq has increased to 51 or 53%, depnding on which blog you read. The Left Coaster says it's 51, and:

...before you dismiss this talk because the GOP controls all the government machinery, take a look at what Zogby says about Bush’s troubles amongst his base now, and then think about the possibility that Democrats could reclaim one or both houses of Congress next year, making those concerns about GOP control irrelevant.

The 39% job performance is the lowest we have registered so far for Mr. Bush. Behind those numbers are some troubling trends for his party. He is rated positively by only 43% of men, 48% of gun owners, 44% of NASCAR fans, 46% among those who attend a place of worship weekly, 39% of Catholics, 48% of Protestants -- including just 59% among self-described 'Born Again' Protestants, 41% of armed services households, 47% of married voters, and just 72% of conservatives (his lowest yet). These are all groups that have provided strong support for him in the past. He gets only 76% of Republicans (again his lowest in our polls), with just 11% of Democrats and 28% of Independents. His support among Hispanic voters is down to 21% and only 6% among African Americans.

At A Tiny Revolution, we find that:

Democrats.com (one of the members of the After Downing Street coalition) has launched Impeach Pac, a political action committee trying to raise $100,000 for 2006 candidates who'll promise to support the impeachment of Bush and Cheney.

Via AmericaBlog, who seems to know best what they're talking about:

New Zogby poll: 53% of Americans say Congress should consider impeaching Bush if he lied about why we went to war in Iraq

But 51 or 53%, as Coaster also says,

[Even] 51% is a significant number when talking about considering impeachment, and is a far bigger number than was registered when Clinton was in the midst of his worst days over his stupidity with Lewinsky. And for anyone who says 51% means nothing, I would remind you that an alleged 51% was considered a “mandate” by the wingers just a year ago.

Let me remind you too that a majority of U.S. adults already believe Bush did lie. It may be that this is gonna be, in the end, what bites the Republicans in the ass about the Clinton impeachment. They lowered the standard for impeachment so far that now they haven't a leg to stand on when it comes to defending their guy. Because we do remember.

I still say, if the Republicans want to stay ahead of the curve on this, they ought to be the first ones to bring it up. If they wait until the '06 election and Democrats re-take the senate... then again, why am I helping them?

A little something you might want to send to any friends or relations who voted for Bush

Unless, of course, you're non-confrontational, as I am. Think Progress has put together a dandy little timeline of What’s Happened Since Bush’s Reelection. Everything from:

November 3: Bush Pledges To Reach Out the Whole Nation In Second Term. Bush: “So today I want to speak to every person who voted for my opponent: To make this nation stronger and better I will need your support, and I will work to earn it. I will do all I can do to deserve your trust. A new term is a new opportunity to reach out to the whole nation.”

November 8: Federal Judge Rules Bush Overstepped Constitutional Grounds In Brushing Aside Geneva Conventions In Treatment of Detainees.

November 9: Presidential Election Revealed Major Voting System Failures.

To:

September 23: SEC Launches Probe into Stock Sales Of Sen. Bill Frist.

September 28: Tom DeLay Indicted, Resigns Leadership Position.

October 3: Harriet Miers Nominated to the Supreme Court.

October 4: Bush Admits Defeat on Social Security. In a press conference, Bush said, “There seems to be a diminished appetite in the short term” for dealing with Social Security.

October 25: Harriet Miers’ Nomination Withdrawn.

October 25: U.S. Military Suffers 2,000th Fatality in Iraq.

October 28: I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby Charged With Five-Count Indictment.

Yes, it has been quite a year.

Holy shit!

We spend a lot of time around here mocking the fact that Bush's job approval keeps hitting new lows, for example by quoting CBS News:

The plunge in poll numbers is another dose of bad news for a White House mired in it. The only recent president lower at this point in their second term was Richard Nixon.

Or Egalia, who thinks:

Maybe Bush and Cheney want to give Gore a call and beg him to come to their rescue. Failure is hard work.

And don't expect that trend to change anytime soon.

But I ask myself, is that really fair? Are you, my vast reading audience, really getting the whole story? Well, the answer is no, probably not. There are certainly people, high-ups in goverment even, who have it even worse in the job approval department than George W. Bush.

This one's for them.

So. What's worse than being President Bush, with a job approval rating of 35%?

Being the Republican-controlled Congress, with a rating of 34%.

What's worse than being the Republican-controlled Congress?

Being Vice President Cheney, with a rating of...

19%.

You heard me, 19%.

Ahhh. This balance is so refreshing!

Do women really care this much about fashion?

Okay, remember a few months back when I posted about a couple of feminist LiveJournals and/or blogs that were both addressing this funny, funny t-shirt? Well, the ladies of Feministing and Feministe found the shirt today.

Jill at the latter says,

Who are the people who buy these shirts? Promoting female stupidity, vapidity and competition is awesome.

I thought then, and am still inclined to think now, they may have been overreacting. Even recognizing that I'm a man and may just not get it.

Although my friend Moya thought the shirt was a hoot. And rightly pointed out that she's smart and does math for a living (and I'll rightly point out that she's also pretty). I was pleased to see a handful of women commenting at Feministe (where there's a selection of similarly "funny" t-shirts) who agreed.

These are bloggers I read daily and respect, but my feeling is still that this is something they need to just lighten up on. For my money Shakespeare's Sister has the best perspective on this.

A group of female high school students in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania have started a girlcott of Abercrombie & Fitch because of a series of t-shirts featuring phrases, in addition to the one pictured, such as “Blondes are adored; brunettes are ignored,” [and]“Do I make you look fat?”

The shirts are stupid, and I would likewise consider anyone who wore them with a modicum of sincerity rather a dullard, but, in these cases, a big kerfuffle usually just means higher sales for the vendor of the stupid item. (Just ask Bill O’Reilly how his lawsuit against Al Franken went. Better yet, ask Al Franken about his subsequent book sales.)

That's pretty much how I feel, even about t-shirts that offend me far worse than these (like those that say "If I want your opinion I'll take my dick out of your mouth.") It's the kind of thing you either think is funny as hell or just stupid. But if you think they're just stupid, the only thing stupider is making " a big kerfuffle" about them.

Also, all three of the blog posts spend a little time allowing for the fact that the shirts, if "worn with irony," might, in fact, be funny. They're just concerned that some women might be wearing them without irony. This is a little too close to the "Of course, I'm smart enough to know the difference...it's the rest of you potato eaters..." thing. Which never flies very far with me.

I suppose it's just a combination of naivety mixed with my desire to put women on pedestals. But I don't think it would ever occur to me, if I saw a woman wearing one of these t-shirts, that she didn't mean it to be funny and ironic. I wouldn't think "Hey, there's a bimbo," I'd think "Hey, there's a woman with a sense of humor."

Sometimes I think I think women are smarter and stronger than they even think they are.

Heading towards being a fucking theocracy?

Amee, my sort-of-kind-of-in-a-way ex, and certainly my friend, commented tonight that that's where she thinks the country is going.

While I wouldn't say not to worry about it at all (eternal vigilance!), I'm not as worried about it as I was.

I linked to the whole latest CBS News poll earlier, but now I want to quote some interesting specific data.

A sizable segment of the public is concerned about the President's ties to evangelical Christians; 34 percent think evangelicals have too much influence in Bush's decisions. 14 percent think they have too little influence, while 25 percent think their influence is about right. 45 percent of white evangelicals themselves think they have about the right amount of influence, while another 25 percent think they have too little.

This is yet another reason Bush is fucked right now, and not in a good way. As has often been said, one of the ways he won is by concealing just how much of an influence evangelical Christianity had on his views.

Now, the more he shows his hand, the more the percentage of people across the nation who don't share those views say "Oh no, you don't." Which is most of us. And with his approval ratings in the mid '30s, he simply cannot afford--nor do I think his party leadership would allow him to--piss us off any further.

But meanwhile, the white evangelicals themselves feel, not unreasonably from their point of view, that Bush is their puppy. And if he doesn't do what they want they will hit him in the nose with a rolled-up newspaper. As with Miers.

So...he's fucked. If he does what they want him to do, he risks alienating the rest of us at a time when he can ill afford it. But if he doesn't, he finds himself in the crosshairs of weapons that he (and Rove, etc) to a large extent created.

Another poll to which I linked in passing earler today says this about "Scalito:"

If it becomes clear Alito would vote to reverse Roe v. Wade, Americans would not want the Senate to confirm him, by 53% to 37%.

This underscores something that most feminist blogs will tell you: Polls have consistenly shown that people in this country support Roe v. Wade. And despite what Bush may say about not caring about polls, I suspect he knows that.

Yeah, maybe the Bush of 2002-2004 could have kept on acting as though he had the support of the majority. But the Bush of 2005 cannot, and I doubt very much the Bush of 2006-2008 will be able to either (especially if we "pass" that mid-term).

What I'm saying is that Bush, iin a very real sense, is reaping what he has sown. And to coin a phrase...bring it on.

ETA: On the other hand, I know a way Bush could win back a lot of goodwill. Announce a public event in which Michael Brown will be tied to the ground, and members of the public can line up to smack him in the face. Hard. With a book, if necessary. Repeatedly.

Yes, some more Katrina-related documents, specifically e-mails, have come to light:

On Sept. 2, Brown received an e-mail saying that 42-foot trailers full of beds, wheelchairs and oxygen concentrators were waiting to be deployed but needed direction. Brown waited four days before finally forwarding the message to other FEMA officials, saying only: "Can we use these people?"


On Aug. 30 - the day after the storm hit and New Orleans was submerged in flood waters - Brown sent an e-mail to his assistant asking if he knew anyone who could watch his dogs.


In other e-mail exchanges, Brown expressed concern that his reputation was being tarnished. The e-mails show he spent time trying to find people to vouch for him.


And on Sept. 4, Brown's press secretary, Sharon Worthy, wrote him an e-mail about his physical appearance. "Please roll up the sleeves of your shirt ... all shirts," Worthy said. "Even the president rolled his sleeves to just below the elbow. In this crises and on TV you just need to look more hard-working ... ROLL UP THE SLEEVES!"

You know, as an '80s man, it pains me to say this...but there are times when substance is more important than style.

Sigh.

Here's another column and blog entry about that business yesterday in D.C. The column is by Dana Milbank of the Washington Post, the blog entry is by ReddHedd of firedoglake.

It was a cheap trick -- and it worked brilliantly. Reporters dropped their stories about Alito and covered the melee in the Senate. CNN titled the episode "Congress in Crisis." MSNBC displayed a live shot of a mostly empty hallway outside the Senate chamber and a clock showing elapsed time since the Senate went into closed session.

Cheap trick my ass -- this was a brilliant maneuver and it was executed flawlessly. And they achieved exactly what they wanted -- changing the subject back to the fact that the Republicans in Congress haven't been doing their jobs, that the Administration has had a free pass far too long, and that Pat Roberts was aiding and abetting them all along.

Yesteday I thought this might actually have forced the Senators to do said jobs, rather than posing pretty for the cameras. Unfortunately, it turns out they are (from both parties) addicted like heroin:

It was clear something was up after lunchtime, because a dozen Democrats took their seats -- an unusual number in the typically empty chamber -- to hear Reid's 20-minute stemwinder condemning the administration. Frist, catching on to the Democrats' plan, huddled in the back with GOP senators. Sen Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) tried to derail Reid. "Would the senator yield?"

Reid ignored him and, two minutes later, sprang his Rule 21 trap. Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) leapt up to second the motion. The sergeant at arms was ordered to "clear all galleries." The lights were dimmed. Reporters were told to leave. The precautions were hardly necessary because the senators, rather than discussing sensitive information as Rule 21 envisioned, spent the next two hours bickering -- and rushing outside to give impromptu news conferences before the cameras. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) alone gave three in as many hours.

"Republicans are outraged," Sen. Christopher Bond (R-Mo.) reported. "I just ate lunch, and it's upset my stomach."

Let me get this straight? The fact that the Republican chairman of the Intelligence Committee has been stimying real oversight into potentially jimmied and forged intelligence foisted on the American public and the Congress in order to drum up a war in Iraq which has cost more than 2,026 American lives and counting (not to mention injured soldiers), didn't bother you one bit.

But Kit Bond's lunch was disturbed because his party was called on their rubber stamping?!? THAT upsets his lunch?!?

How about this for a concept? How about the folks in Congress start actually doing their jobs -- even the Republicans -- instead of allowing Dick Cheney and his little band of cronies to tell them what to do. After all, the Executive Branch and the Legislative Branch are supposed to be separate and distinct. It's called "checks and balances" for a reason -- we aren't a damned monarchy.

For the record, I agree with the ReddHedd.

Caption This Photo

Awww, whatsa matter, gonna cry baby? Come on, cry. Cry! One-two-three-cry! One-two-three-cry!

Smile, Darn Ya, Smile

God bless 'im, Bill from Daily Kos has put together a round-up of things the pundits and others in the press were saying last year about Bush's "broad nationwide victory."

"Bush now has a mandate."
---Bill Bennett

"It is a mandate."
---Tucker Carlson

"He has, I would argue, a mandate now."
---Peggy Noonan

"He's going to say he's got a mandate from the American people, and by all accounts he does."
---Wolf Blitzer, CNN

"Mr. Bush has been given the kind of mandate that few politicians are ever fortunate enough to receive."
---The Wall Street Journal

"In one sense, we think it an even larger and clearer mandate than those won in the landslide reelection campaigns of Nixon in 1972, Reagan in 1984, and Clinton in 1996."
---Bill Kristol

For his part, Bush displayed his trademark modesty:

Let me put it to you this way: I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it.

Today, the president's Political Capital Visa card is maxed out, and the new bankruptcy bill he signed can't bail him out (smart move, pal).

As I, and Steve Gilliard, and Al Franken, and many others have been saying, Bush may have won, but he did not have a mandate. Come on, it's math so simple even I can do it. When almost half of the country doesn't vote for you, you do not have a mandate.

Still, it's one thing, and almost permissible, to claim a mandate in public statements, to crow in your victory and rub your opponents noses in it a little. But Bush behaved as if he believed he actually had a mandate, and that has been his downfall.

Because the country knows for damn sure what they did and didn't vote for. They didn't vote for blindly continuing his most insane, illegal policies and generally acting as though the neocons were the nation. And they've consistently shown that on issues from Terri Schiavo to Alito.

There's a saying about Bush, and I can't remember now who coined it, but it goes that he's a man who was born on third and thought he hit a triple. Similarly, I submit that he's a man who thought he was Ronald Reagan, when he was really Dan Quayle.

And there's a lesson here to be learned about believing your own press. In Bush's case, when I say his own press, I mean his owned press.