I didn't have a chance to blog at all yesterday, and I won't have much time today. But if I did have the time...
+ As one of Ralph Naders original Raiders, James Fallows has a unique perspective on Nader's multiple presidential campaigns.
+ Remember all that commotion about how the expiration of the Protect America Act meant we were all suddenly much less safe? If you have been paying careful attention, you already know it was all a lie. As it turns out, the administration knew it too, and now they have been forced to admit it publicly. Anyone want to place bets on whether or not this admission will stop the lies?
+ Today's edition of up is down. With McCain now on the record attacking Obama as naive for suggesting we should pursue Osama bin Laden into Pakistan if necessary, right wing pundits have decided to follow along. Kevin Drum suggests that this sets up an odd dynamic: Republicans are now arguing that the Dems will be too tough on terrorists, while the Dems are essentially lining up to support a policy that has been in place through the Clinton and Bush years. But I don't see what is odd about that. To me it is utterly irrelevant who does or does not support something. What matters is if the policy will be effective. What's odd is that everyone doesn't work this way. Conservative commentators have spent the last 6+ years arguing that lefties want to hug terrorists, but now they are saying we're naively being too tough? All because their presidential candidate said so? What ever happened to independent thought over there on the right? [More from Steve Benen here]
+ Speaking of John McCain, it looks like he is now trying to walk back his "make it 100 years" comment on Iraq. The war, he now says, is nearly over. Its the occupation + insurgency part that could last a century or more. This makes sense how exactly?
+ One last McCain update: The Dems have now formally accused his campaign of breaking the very same campaign finance laws that he himself helped create. Even though pretty much everyone who has looked closely at the details of his bank loan has said that it violates the law, I have no doubt McCain will defend his actions as "honorable." After all, an honorable man can never act dishonorably, right? [UPDATE: Actually, its better than that. McCain's response came today, and it is based on his constitutional right to free speech. To defend himself, McCain is using the argument most often deployed by opponents to the system he helped create. It's not just that he's flip flopped here. He's now signing on to the legal rational he spent years arguing against!)
+ The US Attorneys scandal was so intricate that I suspect many people don't quite know what happened. Sometimes it helps to focus on a single anecdote to understand just what went wrong. And trust me, there's no single better anecdote than this one, courtesy of this weekend's 60 Minutes:
Rove denies everything, of course, but the evidence is so overwhelming that I don't see why anyone should believe him. Of course, if the worst allegations are true, it does make sense why the White House has shut down any and all congressional investigations into this.
+ This should surprise precisely no one. Bush's presidential library will include a propaganda center and feature heavily censored research materials. Many are outraged by this, but so long as it does not become a new trend - and it need not if legislation is passed - it would serve as a fitting reminder of everything that has been wrong with his time in office.
+ Mike Huckabee was on SNL on, well... Saturday. In case you missed it:
Subscribe to this blog's feed
