HOME | BIO | MUSIC | JOURNEYS BY DJ | STUDIO BLOG | POLITICAL BLOG | BOOKING INFO | CONTACT

Once again I decided to take a few days off from blogging, and with Christmas right around the corner I was hoping that the news would slow down just a bit. Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on how you see it, it hasn't. Of course the way blogging works you can't take off a few hours, let alone days, and by now it seems someone somewhere has said something pretty close to what I wanted to say. So its time for a roundup!

Fist off, Kevin Drum bring our attention to an interesting post on the whole illegal domestic spying story by conservative commentator Jonah Goldberg. In something you're not likely to ever hear me say again, I agree with both of them. I have much less of a problem with actions like this in the days immediately following 9/11. But in the months and years after you have a whole different ball game. The key is going to be in the what's and the why's: What specifically did Bush order monitored, and why didn't he go through the FISA Court. We'll find out much much more in the coming months, but for now I find it very interesting that Jonah and Kevin are in agreement on this.

And while you're over reading Kevin, check out this post as well. Why John Snow is a cabinet secretary of anything is just beyond me. But don't take my word for it; take a look at what the Brookings Institution has to say.

Looking for a good recap of the wiretapping controversy and argument so far? Look here, here, here, and here. And then, check out the latest columns from George Will and Jonathan Alter to get a sense of how rapidly Bush is losing even the hawks on this one. One passage worth quoting in full:

What is especially perplexing about this story is that the 1978 law set up a special court to approve eavesdropping in hours, even minutes, if necessary. In fact, the law allows the government to eavesdrop on its own, then retroactively justify it to the court, essentially obtaining a warrant after the fact. Since 1979, the FISA court has approved tens of thousands of eavesdropping requests and rejected only four. There was no indication the existing system was slow—as the president seemed to claim in his press conference—or in any way required extraconstitutional action.

And last but not least, read this one from Bruce Ackerman over at Slate. Its an interesting take on the internal legal dynamics at the White House and what it means for our national security.

In case you missed the story in today's NYT, Jack Abramoff is looking to cut a deal with the feds. If that happens, I'd be willing to bet the farm on a series of high profile indictments throughout the Republican congressional leadership in 2006. Oh, and it looks like Bloomberg is reporting that the deal could come as early as next week! Want more? ReddHedd has the goods.

For those who missed it, Intelligent Design is dead in Dover, and the court's decision is one for the ages. I know, I know. Reading court documents doesn't sound like something you really want to spend your time doing, but trust me, this one is worth it.

Two big things worth watching out West. First, it looks like Idaho may be the next mountain state to go blue. And yes, once again, its hunters and sportsmen lining up to oppose Republican led environmental plans that are causing the shift. Second, in the state that serves as the model for the shift, Montana' Governor Brian Schweitzer is making news once again, this time for taking on the state's highest profile Republican politician, Sen. Conrad Burns. It's an interesting snapshot in the ongoing battle over the Patriot Act that could have important implications for 2006 and 2008. I've been saying this for over a year now, but when the realignment comes it will in fact come from the West. And this is precisely what it will look like.

Next up, Federal Appeals Court Judge Michael Luttig, a man nearly everyone had on the short list of potential Bush Supreme Court nominees, has put the smack down on the administration's latest flip flop on detainees. Luttig is a conservative judicial all star, so for him to write the following is big almost beyond comprehension:

For, as the government surely must understand, although the various facts it has asserted are not necessarily inconsistent or without basis, its actions have left not only the impression that Padilla may have been held for these years, even if justifiably, by mistake –- an impression we would have thought the government could ill afford to leave extant. They have left the impression that the government may even have come to the belief that the principle in reliance upon which it has detained Padilla for this time, that the President possesses the authority to detain enemy combatants who enter into this country for the purpose of attacking America and its citizens from within, can, in the end, yield to expediency with little or no cost to its conduct of the war against terror –- an impression we would have thought the government likewise could ill afford to leave extant. And these impressions have been left, we fear, at what may ultimately prove to be substantial cost to the government’s credibility before the courts, to whom it will one day need to argue again in support of a principle of assertedly like importance and necessity to the one that it seems to abandon today. While there could be an objective that could command such a price as all of this, it is difficult to imagine what that objective would be.

While I'm dropping quotes, the following taken from a fabulous post by Digby is an essential read:

They won elections in the west and the south by swaggering around extolling the blessed Bill Of Rights and the need to keep the federal government at arms length because Real Men and Women don't need no Democrat sissy nanny state and her Big Brother taking away their rights. 9/11 changed everything. Suddenly the he-men of WalMart and the NRA leaped into Big Brother's arms and shrieked "save me, save me! Do what ever you have to do, they're trying to kill us all!" They now look to Daddy Government not to discipline the children, but to check under the bed for them every night, reassure them that the boogeyman won't hurt them and then read them a nice bedtime story about spreading freedom and democracy. It turns out that underneath all this swaggering bravado, the Republicans aren't the Daddy party --- they're the baby party[...] They are rhinestone cowboys who are scared to death and don't know how to contain their fear. So they lash out at their domestic political enemies, who they can bluster about and pretend to be tough, while hiding behind the military uniforms of their Big Brother and Preznit Daddy (which is a real stretch when it comes to Junior.) The fact that they continue to win elections as being the tough guys perhaps says more about our puerile culture than anything else. They lash out like frightened children and too many people see that as courage or resolve. Violent Islamic fundamentalism is a serious problem, not an existential threat. And it's a difficult problem that requires adults who can keep their heads about them when the terrorists put on their scary show, not big-for-their-age eight year olds staging a temper tantrum.

Please be sure to read the entire post. Great stuff. And then go read this one by Brendan Nyhan. Sen Feingold is now quoting Patrick "give me liberty or give me death" in his opposition to the Patriot Act? Damn.

And last but not least, if you're looking for predictions on 2006, Newsweek's Howard Fineman is a great place to start.

I'll do my best to post tomorrow or Friday, but after that expect things to be light until a few days after New Year's. This has been a long one ANd a good one, and its time to do some celebrating!

--------