Fitzgerald is "keeping them guessing"

From the LA Times:

The White House -- and lawyers for White House advisers Karl Rove and I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby -- braced for the possibility of indictments, although there were signs that Fitzgerald was keeping them guessing to the bitter end.

People close to the investigation said that, as of late Thursday afternoon, Rove had received no notice that he was going to be indicted. Some observers took that as a sign that the longtime Bush strategist might emerge from the investigation without being charged.

But others said that Fitzgerald might be waiting until Friday to alert those being charged to reduce the chances of last-minute leaks about his intentions.

Makes you wonder what Fitzgerald is up to and whether this is part of his elaborate scheme. I am inclined to think that it is. Rove's not sure he's going to be indicted, and not sure he won't be. When Karl reads the NY Times, he'll know that the investigation isn't over by a long shot. Rove, the master of mind games, is getting a taste of his own medicine. Read the rest of this post...

RoveGate update from NYTimes

At first blush, looks like a mixed bag for tomorrow:

Associates of I. Lewis Libby Jr., Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, expected an indictment on Friday charging him with making false statements to the grand jury in the C.I.A. leak inquiry, lawyers in the case said Thursday.

Karl Rove, President Bush's senior adviser and deputy chief of staff, will not be charged on Friday, but will remain under investigation, people briefed officially about the case said. As a result, they said, the special counsel in the case, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, was likely to extend the term of the federal grand jury beyond its scheduled expiration on Friday.

If this is true, there will be one major indictment tomorrow, of Libby. But it looks like Fitzgerald won't be finished. All week, we've been reading that the White House was just waiting for this to come to a conclusion so they could finally get their act together and get back to work. But if the Times is right, there isn't a conclusion yet for Karl, by any means. Another grand jury looking even harder at Karl, that means Fitzgerald has his teeth into Karl and isn't letting go (it also means we don't have to update our Treason's Greeting holiday cards - phew!). Just as importantly, Libby will be under indictment and Lord only knows what Fitzgerald is going to uncover about Cheney and the White House's role in lying to the country about going to war in Iraq etc.

I won't lie to you, I'd rather have a Rove indictment (and we still may get one - let's face it, it ain't over till the Irish prosecutor sings). But having this be a non-conclusion, having the Veeps chief of staff indicted, and having Rove REMAIN under investigation is pretty damn good. It will keep the White House in chaos for years to come. I still say it's 50-50 that Rove resigns tomorrow so that the president can move on.

Let's see what other reports start appearing tonight. Read the rest of this post...

Sulu is gay

Cool.

For some strange reason, I think I knew this a few years ago. Hmmm... Anyway, way cool. I have his private email address, gonna send him a note (the things you collect living in DC for 20 years...)

George Takei, best known for his role as Mr. Sulu in "Star Trek," came out as homosexual in the current issue of a magazine covering the Los Angeles gay and lesbian community....

The 68-year-old actor said he and his partner, Brad Altman, have been together for 18 years.

Takei, a Japanese-American who lived in a U.S. internment camp from age 4 to 8, said he grew up feeling ashamed of his ethnicity and sexuality. He likened prejudice against gays to racial segregation.

"It's against basic decency and what American values stand for," he said.

Good for him. Read the rest of this post...

AOL Hires Mary Cheney

What the heck does Mary Cheney know about building up Web site businesses, anyway? This would make sense if AOL was looking for someone with expertise in betraying their community. Read the rest of this post...

Open thread

Ok, tell me it's finally Fitzmas Eve, please..... Read the rest of this post...

Forbes magazine tells companies to "dig up dirt" on bloggers

Forbes has a cover story this week on the "Attack of the Bloggers," and it is probably the worst article ever, in terms of getting the story wrong and hyperbole. (You have to subscribe to their site for free to read the article - it's really not worth it.)

Some of my favorite quotes:

The blog mob loves to spout off about First Amendment freedom, except when it seeks to deprive foes of the same.

Send those bloggers to Gitmo, Batman!

Web logs are the prized platform of an online lynch mob spouting liberty but spewing lies, libel and invective.

Gee, FOX News, much?

"Bloggers are more of a threat than people realize, and they are only going to get more toxic. This is the new reality," says Peter Blackshaw, chief marketing officer at Intelliseek, a Cincinnati firm that sifts through millions of blogs to provide watch-your-back service to 75 clients, including Procter & Gamble and Ford.

Did you get that? They guy they quote is a guy who sells his services monitoring blogs. Great unbiased source.

Then the article calls bloggers "online haters."

Oh, what's this? One line out of four pages that actually praises blog: "Attack blogs are but a sliver of the rapidly expanding blogosphere."

Uh oh, even AMERICAblog is an evil attack blog, look out!

Even mighty Microsoft, for all its billions, dares not defy the blogosphere. In April gay bloggers attacked Microsoft over its failure to support a gay-rights bill in Washington State (the company is based near Seattle). "Dear Microsoft, You messed with the wrong faggots," wrote John Aravosis, publisher of AmericaBlog, which threatened to oppose Microsoft's plans for a big campus expansion unless the company caved in. Microsoft reversed itself two weeks later, saying it supports gay-rights legislation after all. It says pressure from its own employees, not from bloggers, caused the change of heart.

Then we have another personal attack on bloggers:

But if blogging is journalism, then some of its practitioners seem to have learned the trade from Jayson Blair. Many repeat things without bothering to check on whether they are true, a penchant political operatives have been quick to exploit.

If Forbes is journalism... oh never mind. And this:

And though they have First Amendment protection and posture as patriotic muckrakers in the solemn pursuit of truth, the blog mob isn't democratic at all. They are inclined to crush dissent with the "delete" key.

But even the Constitution doesn't give a citizen the right to unjustly call his neighbor a child molester. Google and the like argue they bear no more responsibility for content than a phone company does for slander over its wires. But Google's blog business looks less like a phone company and more like a mix of reality TV and an online magazine. Bloggers provide the fare, and Google maintains it for them free of charge, sometimes selling ads.

You mean you CAN'T cry fire in a crowded movie house?! Man, I'm learning new things from this article with each paragraph.

And finally, if that weren't enough, Forbes provides a "Fighting Back" special section that tells companies who are criticized by blogs how to fight back. Among Forbes' suggestions, these are my favorites:

BASH BACK. If you get attacked, dig up dirt on your assailant and feed it to sympathetic bloggers. Discredit him.

Yes, that actually came from Forbes. That has to be the most idiotic suggestion I have ever heard. Can you imagine if Microsoft had decided to start digging up dirt on me? Oh imagine the fun we'd have had then. (To Microsoft's credit, it did not.)

Then another great suggestion from Forbes:

ATTACK THE HOST. Find some copyrighted text that a blogger has lifted from your Web site and threaten to sue his Internet service provider under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. That may prompt the ISP to shut him down. Or threaten to drag the host into a defamation suit against the blogger. The host isn't liable but may skip the hassle and cut off the blogger's access anyway. Also: Subpoena the host company, demanding the blogger's name or Internet address.

Gee, so file fallacious nuisance lawsuits. Nice.

The sad part is that there are real people from real businesses reading this crap and thinking that now they understand blogs, and worse yet, now they have the weapons to fight back. Just very sad.

Oops, I'd better stop criticizing Forbes or they're going to "dig up dirt" on me. Read the rest of this post...

They killed Harriet

From a friend:

Senator Sam Brownback

“There's precious little to go on and a deep concern that this would be a Souter-type candidate…Not much track record, people vouching for her, yet indications of a different thought pattern earlier in life." (Bush Defends Supreme Court Pick, Washington Post, 10/5/05)

Senator Rick Santorum

“I don't know yet…But I am concerned President Bush nominated someone who is a blank slate. I'm disappointed he wanted to nominate someone like that instead of someone with a record." [Santorum Touches Base, Public Opinion, 10/14/05 ]

Senator Jeff Sessions

"I am uneasy about where we are." [withdrawmiers.org ]

Senator Norm Coleman

"I certainly go into this with concerns." [withdrawmiers.org ]

Senator Trent Lott

"I do have difficulty with this nominee.'' [withdrawmiers.org ]

Senator John Thune

"There is an awful lot of Republican senators who are saying we are going to wait and see." [withdrawmiers.org ]

Phyllis Schlafley

“We expected President Bush to appoint a woman with the opposite judicial philosophy and paper trail of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Our disappointment is acute.” [withdrawmiers.org ]

Ann Coulter

“This does show the power of the radical right wing as democrats call it, normal Americans, as I call it in this country.” [CNN, 10/27/05]

“Miers is no more qualified to sit on the Supreme Court than I am to be a sumo wrestler. The hearings aren’t going to change that; the will just make it more obvious.” [Does This Law Degree Make My Resume Look Fat?, 10/12/05 ]

Pat Buchanan

“In picking her, Bush ran from a fight. The conservative movement has been had -- and not for the first time by a president by the name of Bush… here was the great opportunity to draw all together for a battle of philosophies, by throwing the gauntlet down to the Left… He instinctively recoiled from it. He blew it.” (Miers' Qualifications Are 'Non-Existent', 10/3/05)

Rush Limbaugh

“…defeating the left has been a lifelong objective for many people, and defeating them to the point that they are not rendered absent but obsolete. And to now compromise with them or to appear to compromise with them is what looks weak to me…” [Pick Made From Weakness Is Unnecessary Roll of the Dice, 10/3/05]

Concerned Women for America

“Miss Miers’ record, as reflected in her speeches, is of promoting a leftist agenda that relies upon the courts to impose their views…We’d prefer to have someone fond of quoting Margaret Thatcher or Antonin Scalia rather than Barbra Streisand and Gloria Steinem. Some of Miss Miers’ own comments border on male-bashing.” [Jan LaRue, Conservative Women for America, 10/26/05 ]

“…Though she attends an Evangelical church known for its pro-life position, during the same time period she advanced radical feminists and organizations that promote agendas that undermine respect for life and family…” [Wendy Wright, Concerned Women for America, 10/26/05 ]

Americans for Better Justice

“Conservatives support President Bush but not Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers. Judge Robert Bork says, 'I don't think she's qualified" and calls Miers' nomination "a disaster on every level." And Rush Limbaugh says, "I am totally behind the president ... but I disagree with this nomination.”” [Betterjustice.com <%09http://betterjustice.com/> ]

David Frum

"She once told me that the president was the most brilliant man she had ever met." Frum scoffed that in a White House "that hero-worshiped the president, Miers was distinguished by the intensity of her zeal." (Mild About Harriet, Newsweek, 10/17/05)

The president's supporters had reason ''to be disappointed and alarmed.'' (When a President Is Not Spoiling for a Fight, New York Times, 10/4/05)

Joseph Cella, Fidelis

“We believe that the best interests of the country and the Supreme court would be served if Ms. Miers withdraws her nomination.” [withdrawmiers.org ]

Ken Connor, former President of the Family Research Council, Chairman of the board for the Center for a Just Society:

“The President promised to nominate jurists in the mold of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. To date, there is no objective evidence confirming that Ms. Miers holds a judicial philosophy consistent with these two Justices.” [withdrawmiers.org ]

Robert Bork

"I don't know that there is a deliberate message — I think he is just trying to avoid trouble — but the message comes through: Do not be controversial, do not express strong opinions that arouse opposition.” (The Right Sees a Strong -- and Wrong – Signal, LA Times, 10/5/05)

Gary Bauer, American Values

“With each passing day the information becomes more and more troubling. At some point, those who feel they should support Harriet Miers because they trust the White House have got to step back and take another look. At some point, the president has got to revisit this. And I think that point is now here.” [Bauer End-of-Day Email, 10/26/05]

Tony Perkins, president of Family Research Council

"We have a lot of respect for this president, and he has a good track record on nominations to the bench…” "But I thought he would make a nomination no one would have to question." (When 'Trust Me' Doesn't Cut It, U.S. News & World Report, 10/17/05)

Eugene Delgaudio, president of Public Advocate

"The movement has been betrayed." His organization, one of the few conservative groups to oppose Roberts' confirmation, will also oppose Miers', Delgaudio said. Public Advocate plans a rally Thursday in Washington. (Battle lines may be drawn in new spot, USA Today, 10/4/05)

Manuel Miranda, Third Branch Conference

“This is not what we fought for… How could the president have made such a decision?” (When ‘trust me’ doesn’t cut it, U.S. News & World Report, 10/17/05)

Michelle Malkin

But Mr. Bush did not promise grass-roots conservatives that he would put a Harry Reid-endorsed Cheer Bear on the court. . . . . And it's precisely Miss Miers' lack of on-the-record opinions about vital matters of constitutional law that has conservatives across the country so troubled.
Nobody asks Mr. Bush to put a "publicity hound" on the bench. But asking conservatives to trust that the blank-slate Harriet Miers not only has well-formed views on everything from property rights, the individual right to bear arms and the proper scope of privacy rights, to the Commerce Clause, racial preferences and presidential authority in wartime — but also has the intellectual candlepower to persuade her potential colleagues — based on little more than her Sunday refreshment-retrieving abilities is asking way too much. (Sunday school . .with donuts . . Washington Times, 10/7/05)

David Keene, Chairman of the American Conservative Union

“Most conservatives have stood with Bush from the beginning. Those of us who know him like him. We’ve swallowed policies we might otherwise have objected to because we’ve believed that he and those around him are themselves conservatives trying to do the right thing against sometimes terrible odds. We’ve been there for him because we’ve considered ourselves part of his team. No more.” [The Hill, Keene op-ed, 10/18/05 ]

Read the rest of this post...

"Africans will have sex with anything that has a pulse," says GOP candidate for Virginia House of Delegates

Ah, that reaching out to minorities, thing.

His name is Chris Craddock. Cute, but dumb as a rock.

I guess now that Bush is at 38% in the polls, the GOP can always rely on that all-important Klan vote. Read the rest of this post...

Anti-Ahnold flash cartoon

They just bought an ad for it on the blog, so I checked it out, and it's actually quite cute. So, I'm giving it a post as well. You can see it here. Turn up your sound. Read the rest of this post...

Ohio GOP "Coingate" figure indicted

Oh Noe! Read the rest of this post...

Bush's weakness on full display

So the right wingers are puffing up their chests and their President is looking like a real wimp:

Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers' sudden withdrawal underscores the strength of the social conservatives who form President Bush's political base and the weakness of a president buffeted by one political misfortune after another.

Like father, like son. And the week isn't over yet:

...the White House is worried about the possibility of indictments Friday in a special prosecutor's investigation into whether top officials leaked the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame as part of an effort to discredit her husband and his outspoken criticism of the Iraq war.

Adding to the distractions confronting the Bush presidency: rising fuel prices, soaring deficit spending and increasing public opposition to the Iraq war, which on Tuesday tallied the 2,000th American military death.

Read the rest of this post...

HarrietMiers.blogspot.com weighs in

It's good. Read the rest of this post...

Treason's Greetings

We now have Holiday Cards and postcards for sale:



PS If you click through, you'll see that the images looks blurry on the sample products - it's not really blurry, it's just been shrunk a million times to fit on that page. On the actual products for sale it is as clear as the image above - well, it IS the image above!

Another PS - I'm personally partial to the mugs - would make nice Christmas gifts :-) Read the rest of this post...

Open thread

Just realized it'd been a while. Read the rest of this post...

Bush is setting the religious right up

Now that we've entered the post-Harriet world, it's time to analyze what this means.

Yes, it means that Bush will pick a far-right nutjob for the next nominee. That makes me happy. Here's why.

1. Harriet Miers' nomination was killed by the Republican party because they didn't think she was conservative enough. That means that Democrats can kill the next nomination if they think it's not liberal enough.

2. The GOP just lost all of their Supreme Court talking points. Who in the GOP is going to be able to stand up with a straight face and say "every nominee deserves an up or down vote"? Kiss that talking point good bye.

3. And who is going to be able to argue that there should be no "litmus test" on abortion and other issues? Harriet was killed because last night a report came out that she was sympathetic to a woman's right to choose. She failed their litmus test on abortion, and she was killed. That means if the next nomination fails our litmus test on abortion, we can kill the next one.

4. The Harriet debacle shows Bush to be incredibly weak. That doesn't help him at all, in anything. It will only further the public perception of him as a failing president of a failing presidency. And the weaker Bush is, the less trouble he can stir up.

5. The Democrats had the power to filibuster Bush's handful of wacky lower court nominees with impunity, there is no way they're going to have a problem filibustering those same nominees when the wacko is appointed to the Supreme Court. It will be a cake walk.

6. If Bush thought he could get a wack-job confirmed, he'd have appointed a wack-job instead of Harriet in the first place. He didn't. Nothing has changed to put Bush in a better stead now to get such a wack-job confirmed, and in fact, he's worse off because now he appears even weaker and all his talking points have been blown out of the water. So let him appoint the wack-job, and let the fun begin.

7. The religious right and "conservatives" in the GOP have shown their cards. They're nasty, vindictive, extremists who want the entire pie or nothing, and they're willing to destroy their own president if he doesn't give them 110% of everything they want. They've burned their bridges with this president, and this president is going to be around for 3 years. This should be fun.

8. Bush has shown his cards to the far right. He's not a real conservative. He doesn't like their agenda. He's embarrassed to publicly embrace it. No matter who he appoints next, they now know Bush isn't one of them and that impression - that realization - will linger for the rest of his term.

8. And finally, Bush is setting the religious right up, and that makes me smile. Yes, Bush will pick a wack-job for the next nominee, even though he knows the wack-job won't be confirmed. Bush will fight for his nominee, blah blah blah, and the nomination will fail. Then Bush will say, see, I tried - then he'll nominate Alberto Gonzales, who the religious right hates, and get him confirmed. Bush will be able to argue that he gave the religious right want they wanted and it just didn't work. Oh well, time for Alberto.

So that's why all of this makes me very very very happy. It's a big mess, and messes provide opportunities. Read the rest of this post...

Rove in jeopardy, developing trial strategy

Via Associated Press:

Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald huddled with his legal team Thursday as two key White House aides awaited their fate in the CIA leak probe.

A spokesman for the prosecutor said there would be no public announcements Thursday. The term of the grand jury that could bring indictments expires Friday.

The White House braced for the possibility that Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, could become a criminal defendant by week's end. Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove, remained in jeopardy of being charged with false statements.

Libby and Rove arrived for work at the White House Thursday as usual. Rove attended the daily meeting of the senior staff, but Libby did not and was said to be in a security briefing. Libby misses senior staff about half the time because of intelligence briefings and other issues on Cheney's schedule, an official said.

Separately, Randall Samborn, a spokesman for Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, said there would be no announcements in the probe on Thursday.

Rove's legal team made contingency plans, consulting with former Justice Department official Mark Corallo about what defenses could be mounted in court and in public.

Looks like Karl is too busy running his own campaign strategy to worry about Bush and Harriet. Maybe he should give a speech. Read the rest of this post...

Right Wing DOES have a litmus test for Supreme Court

The right wing killed the nomination of Harriet Miers because she did not pass their litmus test. John said that last night when he saw the press release from Concerned Women of America opposing Miers. I heard a radio interview with Sam Brownback (R-KS) on the way to work. He said he wanted a paper trail for the next nominee. Right wingers like Brownback want proof the candidate will overturn Roe v. Wade and undo other rights.

Harry Reid got it right:

''The radical right wing of the Republican Party killed the Harriet Miers nomination...''

The conservatives destroyed their own talking points about getting every nominee a vote. They only want votes for nominees who pass their litmus test.

Bush was defeated on the Miers nomination by his own people. That makes the loss more devastating. And, it verifies that there is no room for compromise with the theocrats. Read the rest of this post...

CNN: No Fitzmas today

CNN just reported that Fitzgerald's office reports no public announcements today. Read the rest of this post...

Bush Statement of Harriet's Withdrawal

Bush's statement from AP:

"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," Bush said. "Harriet Miers' decision demonstrates her deep respect for this essential aspect of the constitutional separation of powers -- and confirms my deep respect and admiration for her."

He is the lamest of lame ducks now. Read the rest of this post...

AP: Miers Withdraws Herself

AP via CNN reporting Miers has withdrawn. Discuss.

UPDATE 1: John King being interviewed by Miles O' Brien:

A President at war with his own party.
[Bush] is weak right now.
Democrats didn't have to lift a finger to create this turmoil.
Those groups that the White House likes to say are fringe groups have won this round.
We're going to learn a lot about the tone of the rest of this administration.

Read the rest of this post...

Shell delivers another massive increase in profit

Hooray for Big Oil! Shell only delivered a 68% rise in net profits but yes, they're still getting by and making ends meet. Thankfully the GOP is there to support them during their time of need.

Remember the mantra for Big Oil: we are all in this together. You give, they receive. Read the rest of this post...

Thursday Morning Open Thread

Ugh, Ann Coulter on the Today Show talking about RoveGate...that's the best they could do? Read the rest of this post...

Big Oil PR campaign: We are all in this together (except some are more "in it" than others)

Yes, we're all in this together, except that Big Oil is now churning out record profits once again while the middle class gets stuck with a hefty bill both at the pump and in their tax bill which hands out more corporate welfare to Big Oil, courtesy of the GOP. BP enjoyed a comfortable 34% rise despite production actually being lower and Exxon is said to be delivering the largest corporate profit ever today. Uh huh, this is an industry that needs more handouts from the middle class because how else will it survive?

Who actually thinks up these marketing campaigns and what fools actually believe them? How about the GOP does something to lessen the burden on the middle class for a change instead of worrying about Big Oil first. Read the rest of this post...

Cindy Sheehan: Don't Support Hillary

War protestor and thorn in Bush's side Cindy Sheehan says Hillary Clinton was coldly calculating in supporting the war instead of voting her conscience. And Sheehan says no one like Clinton who supports the war should get your vote. Is Cindy right? Read the rest of this post...

Millions Of Floridians Without Power And Basics...And Jeb Bush Says They're Dumb

Why isn't the incompetence in dealing with Hurricane Wilma a bigger story? Check out this hurricane story from the NYT on Wednesday. You'll see a photo of a seething mass of people trying desperately to get water and ice -- and being held back by overwhelmed police. It looks like a riot scene. Where did the story run? On A-25.

In today's NYT, it's clear that MILLIONS will be out of power for weeks, if not a month or more. And in today's USA Today, they highlight Gov. Jeb Bush's insensitivity -- basically, Jeb said Floridians were stupid for not stocking up on supplies themselves. He also contradicted the mayor of Miami (and common sense) by insisting FEMA had NO role to play in disaster relief and it was all his responsibility. What the hell does he think FEMA is for if not to assist in cases of national emergency?

But why isn't the latest screwup during a natural disaster on the front page of every newspaper in the country? Read the rest of this post...

Wow. The White Sox won the World Series

Wow. Cool. Read the rest of this post...