
These guys broke the mold.



They don't hire Democrats over at the Justice Department."Individuals at the department were rejecting any of our candidates who could be construed as left-wing or who were perceived, based on their appearances and resumes and so forth, as being more liberal," Kevin Ohlson, deputy director of the department's executive office of immigration review, complained to Justice investigators.This makes me insane. These are public service jobs. I personally have no doubt that this was going on across the board. There damn sure better be investigations into the hiring practices of every organ of this government.


With a little over four months remaining before the general election a narrative of Obama landslide is setting in. It's not so much in the media, as it is in the streets.
A new national poll puts Obama up by 12%. When Nader and Barr are factored in, Obama's lead goes up to 15%. That's the same spread in a Newsweek poll that came out earlier this week.
I'm not comparing Obama to the Duke, because there's no basis for that. But there was no basis to think that Dukakis would implode when he did. The point is, I wish today was November 4.



The Rilo Kiley tour is now a thing of the past. Too bad we missed out on it here in Florida but we did get to see it last year. But, is this curtains for RK? No one's talking, but Jenny Lewis did send out what could be a hint or perhaps some playful misinformation when she closed the band's final performance (review here) of the tour with the words, "It's been nice knowing ya."
NPR's brilliant On the Media program dedicated this week's program to media in China. Brooke Gladstone delves deep into Chinese culture and takes a close look at "the new China". There is real investigative reporting in China, it’s just not done under a free press flag. Instead, practitioners mind an unstated set of rules, keeping themselves safe by employing tactics like using excessive jargon and exploiting government rivalries. It's an evolving dance requiring ingenuity, subtlety, courage and a willingness to be fired every day.Anyone interested in peering below the superficial clichés that define the relationship between the China and the West should take a listen.
Rumsfeld recently announced that he is writing his memoirs, while Feith's account, "War and Decision: Inside the Pentagon at the Dawn of the War on Terrorism," came out this spring.Meanwhile, Andrew Sullivan has his eyes on another neocon who's making some very interesting assertions about what could be, as Sullivan calls it, "The Mother of all October Surprises." On Fox News today, William Kristol speculated that Bush would attack Iran if he though that Obama might win thge election. Kristol coats this assertion in dung by claiming that Bush would do it because he would doubt Obama's ability to do the right thing and bomb Iran. Sullivan, and a lot of others, think that Bush would hit Iran as a means of perking up McCain's waning White House hopes by sinking us back into the fear narrative of the 2004 campaign.
In a series of lengthy interviews over several weeks, Feith explicitly stated that his objective in writing his book was to start the process of altering the accepted history of the Iraq war, to adjust the Rumsfeld team's place in history. He wants to change the narrative - before it is too late.
Feith sees his book as nothing less than the opening salvo in what he and many of his allies hope will be a major and prolonged campaign by Bush administration hawks to develop a new school of revisionist history of the early 21st century, in which they will be heroes, rather than the villains. They see this fight for historical dominance as the last battle of the war in Iraq.
How far this devolves into the "stabbed in the back" school of history remains to be seen. But the outlines are already clear.
Feith argues that the Pentagon team's historical standing has been victimized by its unilateral disarmament in the leak and access wars of the Bush administration, even as their foes at the State Dept. and the Central Intelligence Agency whispered to the press about the evil men at the Pentagon. Rumsfeld so hated leaks and leakers, Feith says, that the Pentagon team allowed themselves to be Swiftboated by the forces under Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and CIA Director George Tenet.
I feel you, Sullivan, but that act won't play in 2008. Americans loathe Bush because he sank the country into an economic quagmire by pissing away our resources on Iraq. Under this simple narrative, there's no chance the American people will buy into another Republican foreign policy adventure anywhere in the world, much less the next country over, one that's spelled differently by only one letter. We might be crazy be we ain't dumb.A fascinating little moment on Fox News Sunday today. Bill Kristol airs the idea that if Obama looks as if he will win the election, Bush or Israel may be more likely to attack Iran before next January. Bush could say: Obama made me do it! Kristol also raises the prospect of Saudi Arabia and Egypt going nuclear in response to an Obama presidency. I think we'll see many more of these dire warnings if Obama looks like the next president - and he's increasingly the favorite. But why do I find the hysteria not so effective this time around? Maybe it's because the period in which we could have stopped Iran's nuclear ambition is now behind us.
But could it happen? Could Bush bomb Iran before the next election and create a sense of international crisis that could cause voters to swing back to McCain? From everything we know and Bush and Cheney, the answer, surely, is yes. His failed policies have left only one option to prevent Iran's going nuclear: war. And Bush must be chafing to see how his legacy could be dramatically changed if Obama wins. We could be facing the mother of all October surprises.
I'm with Sullivan in one sense--the Bush Administration have a history of attacking countries for political reasons. The Iraq Invasion was supposed to be the lynch pin in turning Bush into "A War President" and did, in some respects, make Bush un-assailable in 2004.

McCain is not without a financial savior: the Republican National Committee. The Arizona senator, as the presumed GOP nominee, now controls it. And, while McCain can raise only $2,300 per donor for the November election, the national party can raise $28,500 per donor - a limit set by the campaign finance reform that McCain championed.Throw in the endless loot being funneled by GOP interests to 527s and Barack Obama will need every cent dropped on his campaign by his donors. Opting into the system would have crippled his campaign.
By the end of April, he and the RNC had $62 million in the bank - $10 million more than Obama and the Democratic National Committee.
"Our fund-raising is increasing," McCain said in Stockton, Calif., where he held his third fund-raiser in a 24-hour period last week at the home of developer Alex Spanos, owner of the San Diego Chargers.
For a $2,300 donation to McCain, donors received a lapel pin. But the invitation made clear McCain wanted couples to arrive with checks for as much as $86,200. At other fund-raisers, couples have been encouraged to give $140,000 or more.


Bronzed Florida Governor Charlie H. Crist's zeal to fall all over himself to secure the VP slot on the Republican ticket has a better chance of making him a one-term governor than it does of making him Vice President. In service to McCain, Crist just flip-flopped on one of the issues Floridians will not tolerate--offshore drilling. That issue was such a big deal in this state that when he was governor Jeb Bush begged his brother not to open up Florida for drilling.
This is a bit dated, but last week John McCain referred to the Supreme Court's decision to allow detainees a right to request a hearing one of the worst decisions in history.Does it rank with Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857), which concocted a constitutional right, unmentioned in the document, to own slaves and held that black people have no rights that white people are bound to respect? With Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), which affirmed the constitutionality of legally enforced racial segregation? With Korematsu v. United States (1944), which affirmed the wartime right to sweep American citizens of Japanese ancestry into concentration camps?Dissenting Justice Antonin Scalia says that we might lose a city because of this ruling. I read his ludicrous dissent in full. It didn't mention that investigative journalism conducted by McClatchy Newspapers uncovered that individuals that were wrongly detained in the Bush administration's post-9/11 panic to look like they were securing our nation once released actually became militants.
(more)
The other side likes to use 9/11 as a political bludgeon. Well, let’s talk about 9/11.
The people who were responsible for murdering 3,000 Americans on 9/11 have not been brought to justice. They are Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda and their sponsors — the Taliban. They were in Afghanistan. And yet George Bush and John McCain decided in 2002 that we should take our eye off of Afghanistan so that we could invade and occupy a country that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. The case for war in Iraq was so thin that George Bush and John McCain had to hype the threat of Saddam Hussein, and make false promises that we’d be greeted as liberators. They misled the American people, and took us into a misguided war.
Here are the results of their policy. Osama bin Laden and his top leadership — the people who murdered 3000 Americans — have a safe-haven in northwest Pakistan, where they operate with such freedom of action that they can still put out hate-filled audiotapes to the outside world. That’s the result of the Bush-McCain approach to the war on terrorism.
The radio slap fight between Michael Reagan and Mark Dice would be hilariously funny if the two of them didn't represent the destructive sentiments of actual people. It's right up there with The Three Stooges meet the Monsters.Antique walrus print courtesy of FineRarePrints.Com