"beyond the rule of law, beyond the protection of any courts. The procedural rules do not prohibit the use of force to coerce the prisoners to confess. It's not quite torture but at close as you can get. As a lawyer brought up to admire the ideals of ... democracy and justice I would have to say that I regard this as a monstrous failure of justice."

The judge is considering urging sanctions on the rogue nation.

"It may be appropriate to pose a question - ought our government to make plain publicly and unambiguously our condemnation of [this] utter lawlessness."

Just kidding. He was actually talking about the US's treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo. Stinkin' Brits--what kinda lousy friends are you, huh? Oh, that's right, you're our only friends.

Emma joins in disputing the idea that the Medicare bill is anything good for progressives, citing the popular E.J. Dionne essay a lot of folks are linking to. She sees the loss on the bill as being "about kicking the prone body of the Democrats in the head."

...As for the politics, passing a shitty bill is worse for the GOP than if the Dems had defeated it. If the Dems had defeated it, Bush could have said, "Well, I tried to fulfill my promise to give seniors a drug benefit, but the obstructions Dems stopped me." Now, Bush has full responsibility for the details of the bill and seniors won't be happy. They'll recognize that the trillions of dollars in tax cuts meant they only had this pathetic benefit available.

Nathan's point is perfectly reasonable, as is the analysis he links to by Liberal Oasis. But the reason I'm not ultimately convinced by it is the same reason I'm in a grim mood today--I think the rules have changed. Time and again, Republicans have shown they'll pass legislation that will damage the country and be wildly unpopular so long as it solidifies their position in power. Tax cuts that benefit their donors, regressive legislation that damages workers, the environment, and free trade but benefits PACs and corporate donors, a cynical war that plays a political role and benefits private contractors long connected to the White House (and who are, of course, donors): none of it makes sense by the old calculation of poll-based victory. But they don't care about popularity.

In every case, they go ahead with the legislation and worry about spinning it to the public later--this is effective for two reasons: 1) the scope of the deception (that is, the real reason for the action) is unthinkably large and dark for most Americans to accept, 2) the cost hasn't come due yet. In most cases, the legislation is set to phase in after the 2004 election. Political benefit now, expense later. Meanwhile, the GOP spin machine has been reasonably successful at turning say, a massive, dangerous giveaway to industrial polluters into the "Clear Skies" initiative.

So the question arises--what are they up to? And here we come to my "kicking in the head" theory. I believe the GOP, currently guided by revolutionary ideologues, is trying to turn momentary, fluctuating political advantage into permanant dominance. Their assault seeks to control the critical points of rule: the media, judiciary, campaign finance, markets, foreign policy, and federal programs (homeland security, education, medicare). At the same time, they have systematically targeted areas of opposition strength: the environment, labor, social programs, and the Democratic Party.

I was shaken by the Medicare success because it struck so deeply at the Dems and showed them to be so poorly organized. (If Nathan and the Liberal Oasis are right, that this doesn't cause retribution and in-fighting among Dems but does among the GOP, I'll eat some crow--happily.) Because of the success of the GOP spin machine, voter malaise, and the phasing of the Medicare Bill, I expect it to principally profit Republicans. They will have stolen a major issue from the Dems, managed to further gild their corporate donors' bank accounts, and paid no penalty by next November. When the bill does come due, I worry that Republicans will have successfully created such an impressive bulwark of K Street influence, corporate money, and political might that it won't matter anyway.

But of course, I'm in a grim and hopeless mood, and that's probably a good enough reason not to have blogged today. I'll cut my losses and quit babbling now.

If anyone doubted the rules had changed, House Republican leaders ended all illusions in the early hours of Saturday morning by holding open a 15-minute roll call vote for an unprecedented two hours and 51 minutes. At the end of the normal time for voting, Republican leaders faced defeat on the drug bill by a two-vote margin. Eventually, two Republicans were hammered into switching their votes....

Kennedy said in an interview that he had no regrets about trying to get the earlier bill passed. But he acknowledged that Republicans had shown far more discipline than Democrats have ever mustered. Kennedy recalled a conversation he had with then-Sen. Phil Gramm of Texas in the early 1990s about the wall of Republican opposition to President Clinton's health care bill. Gramm, he said, explained that Republicans were determined not to let Clinton and a Democratic Congress prove they were capable of "performing."

Normally I don't want to look like an alarmist, but now it's time to be alarmed. The calculation has changed, folks. Darth is in power, and the Empire is marching (on those spindly walker-legs) right at the rebels. We've got two choices: pull ourselves together and fight ,or continue to screw around and be wiped out. Seriously.

How many times are we going to get kicked in the head before we get organized and start fighting back?

I spent just a few moments after the debate with Kerry. I asked him how it went and he gave the obligatory “really well” answer. Then he said he wished he had had more time to talk about the issues. I asked him what he felt he missed and he said “talking about terror.” David Wade explained that he wanted to talk more about terrorism and his unique credentials to be commander in chief in this post-Sept. 11 world. As for the new, improved John Kerry, he was more focused on special interests and health care but I thought his appearance at this debate was like those in the past -- not a winner or a loser.

Oy. That's a bit, ah, neutral, isn't it? I keep seeing articles talking about how Clark's history isn't littered with happy colleagues--but how about Kerry's campaign staff (and this embed)? Not particularly wowed by the senator, it seems.

On the other hand, maybe the poor embed was just getting tired of the debates. Lord knows I am. I look forward to Iowa so we can get this show on the road.

Royal officials are now in touch with the Queen's insurers and Prime Minister Tony Blair to find out who will pick up the massive repair bill. Palace staff said they had never seen the Queen so angry as when she saw how her perfectly-mantained lawns had been churned up after being turned into helipads with three giant H landing markings for the Bush visit.

The rotors of the President's Marine Force One helicopter and two support Black Hawks damaged trees and shrubs that had survived since Queen Victoria's reign.

R.I.P. DEMOCRATIC PARTY: Well...I may as well hang up my keyboard, and close down this blog.

The dumbass Senate Democrats, mislead by Tom Daschle have handed the 2004 election to George W. Bush and the Republican party.

I am so utterly disgusted right now, I can hardly type.

The Democrats aren't an opposition party. They are a supplication party.

The Democratic Party is in such disarray that the DNC is trying to lobby citizens to sign a petition blocking the legislation. Addressed to Bush and the GOP, the petition reads:

Your Medicare privatization bill is a raw deal for America's seniors. I oppose your attempts to undermine Medicare through privatization, and I demand real health care reform and a real prescription drug benefit. It's time for you to scrap your bill written by the big drug companies and the big insurance companies and start over. Take the lead from Democrats and fight for real reform.

Apparently the Dems didn't get the memo. Nice, the national party is trying to organize the people to oppose a horrible piece of legislation that the party itself doesn't even have the cojones to oppose. That's disarray. Even before the debate, aforementioned Wyden, along with Daschle and Feinstein, had declared they supported the legislation, so forget about hoping for a filibuster.

A dark day indeed for Democrats.

When Gephardt threw his hat in the ring last November I mocked him rather mercilessly. But the biggest news I've seen of late was the early November Des Moines Register poll which showed Gephardt opening up a 7 point lead over Dean.

On the other hand, as the frontrunner and with the kind of campaign he's running -- one geared to grassroots support -- Dean needs to win there too. Wearing the frontrunner crown changes all the expectations. A Gephardt win in Iowa would be a very big deal on a number of counts.

I'm not surprised. Even losing some support among unions, it was clear Gephardt was going to run a strong campaign. As much as we focus on polls, it's wise to remember that polls reflect far less well than infastructure--and Gephardt has a huge advantage there. In early October, I ranked the candidates based on how well they'd do in the primaries and general election (compared to each other). I had Gep ranked number two in the primaries. I think that still applies.

Interestingly, although I had Clark at three in both polls, I agree with Josh's analysis of his campaign: he's stronger now.

On Clark, a few weeks back I said that Clark had no campaign, no message, not no nuthin', but close. Now, he finally seems to have one. He's running ads, showing up on the shows -- the fundraising is decent. He gave a solid foreign policy speech and, in general, his operation is putting together a clear and consistent message.

Below are revised rankings. First number is rank in the primaries, second is the rank in the general. For what it's worth, I think the only candidates who wouldn't beat Bush are Lieberman, Sharpton, and Braun.


1) Dean (1, 1)
2) Clark (3, 2)
3) Gephardt (2, 5)
4) Kerry (4, 3)
5) Kucinich (5, 5)
6) Edwards (6, 6)
7) Braun (7, 7)
8) Lieberman (8, 8)
9) Sharpton (9, 9)

October Rankings
1) Dean (1, 1)
2) Clark (3, 3)
3) Edwards (4, 2)
4) Gephardt (2, 5)
5) Kucinich (6, 4)
6) Kerry (5, 6)
7) Braun (7, 7)
8) Lieberman (8, 8)
9) Sharpton (9, 9)

Quick thoughts. Unless something changes, Dean is still the man to beat. Kerry and Edwards are in weaker positions than 6 weeks ago--Kerry's campaign is faltering (he's trailing in NH and Massachusetts), and Edwards has failed to find a message. Both handled the Dean confederate-flag snafu badly, but that hurt Edwards the most. Gephard plugs along and with a little wind, could beat Dean in the primaries. He's running a classic shoe-leather campaign; hard work, avoiding gaffes.

I don't expect anyone to agree with where I have Kucinich. I know that conventional wisdom has him dead. But after Dean and Gephardt, I believe he has the broadest base of voters actively working for him. He's started to get press as the one candidate who opposes staying in Iraq (a view I don't hold), and he's distinguished himself on economic issues as well. Other second-tier candidates have no such unique messages.

Lieberman is absolutely dead, and I don't care what the national polls say. He's polling well because he received 50 million votes in 2000, but he is a candidate with no consituency. If people are as moderate as Joe, they're behind Bush; if they're even remotely critical of Bush, they're not going to hoist the Lieberman flag.

Clark is a wild card. I buried him a month ago, but I think it was premature. If he can hang around in the upper tier long enough to get a campaign on track, he could be the good-looking moderate that election-day voters might go for. I doubt seriously he'll stir stong emotions among the base, but he might back into the nomination anyway--but Dean will have to stumble first.

Howard Dean, the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, has admitted dodging the Vietnam draft, obtaining a medical deferment for a back condition and then spending 10 months skiing.

Asked if he could have served 33 years ago despite his back condition, Dean told the New York Times: "I guess that's probably true. I mean, I was in no hurry to get into the military."

My guess is that this will be the most damaging in the primaries, but probably not particularly so even there. And in a general election, you could make the argument that it will work to his advantage. As the war in Iraq grows worse by the day, and stories of poor treatment of soldiers become more common, parallels between Iraq and Vietnam will become increasingly obvious. This will bring into sharp focus the judgment of a government who didn't seriously consider an optional war. Dean can point out that bad policy is bad policy, and it's not unreasonable for young men and women to want to avoid having to pay the price for the failures of arrogant chickenhawks. And of course, if Bush presses the draft-dodging issue too hard, he will open himself to criticisms of his own embarrassing military record. So I think Dean will weather this storm.

On the other hand, you might reasonably see this as further evidence that Dennis Kucinich as the superior candidate. Not that I'm, you know, partisan or anything.

More than three dozen of President Bush's major fundraisers are affiliated with companies that stand to benefit from the passage of two central pieces of the administration's legislative agenda: the energy and Medicare bills.

The energy bill provides billions of dollars in benefits to companies run by at least 22 executives and their spouses who have qualified as either "Pioneers" or "Rangers," as well as to the clients of at least 15 lobbyists and their spouses who have achieved similar status as fundraisers. At least 24 Rangers and Pioneers could benefit from the Medicare bill as executives of companies or lobbyists working for them, including eight who have clients affected by both bills....

The energy and Medicare bills were drafted with the cooperation of representatives from dozens of industries. Power and energy company officials; railroad CEOs; pharmaceutical, hospital association and insurance company executives; and the lobbyists who represent them are among those who have supported the bills and whose companies would benefit from their passage.

This is, of course, not unreported and has already failed to elicit a raised eyebrow from the average American (Nicholas Confessore has a great article about the power of K Street lobbying on exactly this topic). But somehow the flood of money back and forth between corporations and the White House seems wholly natural to most Americans. Care to lay odds that you'll hear about this as an election issue? I'll give you 10-1 against.

After months of sustained attacks against President Bush in Democratic primary debates and commercials, the Republican Party is responding this week with its first advertisement of the presidential race, portraying Mr. Bush as fighting terrorism while his potential challengers try to undermine him with their sniping....

With somber strings playing in the background, the commercial flashes the words "Strong and Principled Leadership" before cutting to Mr. Bush standing before members of Congress. Intended to call out the Democrats for their opposition to Mr. Bush's military strategy of pre-emptively striking those who pose threats to the nation, the screen flashes "Some call for us to retreat, putting our national security in the hands of others," then urges viewers to tell Congress "to support the president's policy of pre-emptive self defense."

Our shared work of democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq is essential to the defeat of global terrorism. The spread of freedom and the hope it brings is the surest way in the long-term to combat despair and anger and resentment that feeds terror. The advance of freedom and hope in the greater Middle East will better the lives of millions of that region, and increase the security of our own people.

Before the war, there were several half-assed arguments: WMD, oppression, Al Qaeda links, and spreading democracy. All but the notion of spreading democracy have proven to have been formulations based on bad, raw data mined from the CIA--or outright lies--and now he's left with this "spreading democracy" argument. But no matter how blithely he expresses confidence that the ripples of equality and liberty are spreading throughout the Mideast, reality holds the trump card. Bombings in Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq show that the opposite is happening: fanatacism is spreading.

Sometimes intention doesn't matter. Whether Bush was wagging the dog or really believed that invasion would lead to democracy is of little interest now. Each morning I lurch into wakefulness with the reports of yet another catastrophic bombing. This morning, an analyst mentioned how little affected Bush and Blair seemed by the throngs of people marching against the war. It seems almost a point of pride to Bush not to listen to the people. This appears to be the biggest botched operation in US foreign policy history.

It's wierd, in the back of my mind, I keep waiting for the adult to step forward and say, "all right, George, that's enough. Let someone else handle it from here." I guess I'll be waiting another year, though.

In interviews board members and the executive director of the foundation said they chose to honor Mr. King for a host of reasons: his storytelling skill, his promotion of less-established writers, his donations to libraries and schools and the sheer volume of his work, which has found a multitude of readers. Although the honor denotes a contribution to American letters, several board members said they also considered the cultural influence of his many works adapted for film and television....

Several board members said they believed it was time that the awards began to define "American letters" more broadly than just the kind of literary fiction read by an elite.

"It has to take more chances, and it has to explore different areas of writing," said Isisara Bey, a new board member who is also vice president of corporate affairs at the music division of Sony

A subsequent question--and a more interesting one--is: so what? Why should we care about whether the publishers of American literature are selling out? It's partly interesting because it's at the heart of a culture war. You would expect the King selection to ignite delicious derision from the likes of Harold Bloom, and you'd be right. So:

THE DECISION to give the National Book Foundation's annual award for "distinguished contribution" to Stephen King is extraordinary, another low in the shocking process of dumbing down our cultural life. I've described King in the past as a writer of penny dreadfuls, but perhaps even that is too kind. He shares nothing with Edgar Allan Poe. What he is is an immensely inadequate writer on a sentence-by-sentence, paragraph-by-paragraph, book-by-book basis. The publishing industry has stooped terribly low to bestow on King a lifetime award that has previously gone to the novelists Saul Bellow and Philip Roth and to playwright Arthur Miller. By awarding it to King they recognize nothing but the commercial value of his books, which sell in the millions but do little more for humanity than keep the publishing world afloat. If this is going to be the criterion in the future, then perhaps next year the committee should give its award for distinguished contribution to Danielle Steel, and surely the Nobel Prize for literature should go to J.K. Rowling.

But it's not just that culture wars are fun--there's something else here. Bloom can be dismissed, at least partly, because he refuses to admit that there are writers not educated at Oxford or Harvard who are every bit a match to his beloved Kipling and Keats (all right, maybe not Keats), and that some of them have pushed literature back towards pop fiction. Bloom's always been at the center of things because he loves to conflate culture and the arts, and people love to attack him for it.

But substantially, I agree with him here. The real question is whether literature and pop fiction are different. It's a question the postmodern critique has dealt a punishing blow. If art is subjective, why can't we call pulp fiction literature? But the postmodern critique doesn't argue that all definitions are useless--subjectivity doesn't mean we call science fiction science, for example. Literature and pop fiction are different--as different as literature is from poetry. This isn't a subjective statement--they're intentionally different; they're not just two ends of quality on the same spectrum, they're actually different things altogether.

Literature is an art, and this means using sophisticated and original techniques to communicate something more complex than plot. When an author creates a novel, she isn't trying to tell a story, she's trying to deepen understanding. The plot is one of several elements--metaphor, symbol, form, themes among others--that accomplishes this. Pop fiction, on the other hand is only trying to tell a story. We call pop fiction "genre fiction" for a reason--the "genre" describes the form and parameters of the story. Working within a genre means conforming to those standards.

Stephen King is a quintessential pop fiction writer. In book after book he's honed his structure so that there's absolutely no deviation. No one is seriously going to argue there's some deeper meaning, some kind of complexity, to a Stephen King book. What's the basis for judging a Stephen King novel? Whether it's got an interesting story or not, right? Definitionally, that is pop fiction.

What's sad about the National Book Foundation's award isn't that they honored King, though. It's that they yet again missed an opportunity to engage a new generation of literature readers. Folks like Bloom decry the death of literature in America, and he's hard to argue with. Despite the dozens of MFA programs across the country, the state of American literature is dismal (now that's a subjective statement). But look elsewhere and literature is thriving. Each year I study the Booker short list, knowing that I'll enjoy four of the five novels nominated--and yet probably won't have heard of more than one or two of the authors.

If the National Book Foundation wanted to boost sales and get a lot of press, it should be promoting risky, bold literature, not tired pop fiction. In his condemnation of the King nomination, Bloom used the Harry Potter series to make an astute point: "'Harry Potter' will not lead our children on to Kipling's Just So Stories or his Jungle Book." And neither will reading Stephen King encourage readers to pick up Roddy Doyle, Philip Roth, or Stephen Millhauser. The reason isn't because King's not good enough--it's because he's writing in a different genre. You might as reasonably expect readers of the Dalai Lama to pick up the new Peter Carey. The saddest part of the whole story is that the publishers who back the National Book Foundation seem not to know that. Is it any wonder they're not publishing relevant literature?

In this case, the conservatives' repeated use of the word "lynching" to describe legitimate parliamentary opposition to administration nominees (many of whom themselves have dubious racial skeletons in their professional closets) is designed for one reason only: to attempt to paint Democrats, who in the last century have represented the interests of people of color far more thoroughly and consistently than the GOP, as racists. Of course, they all - and Hatch and Rove in particular - seem blessedly oblivious of any sense of the irony in using "lynching" to describe opposing a white Protestant male from Mississippi.

Good stuff.

Dear Friends,

A number of you have helped turn Paul Krugman’s THE GREAT UNRAVELING into one of the publishing sensations of the season. We thank you and particularly Paul thanks you. However, many of you have asked, “But what else can we do to encourage a regime change in Washington?”

We think there are three things anybody can do:

1. Give a copy to your local library – college and school libraries are especially appreciative of donations.

2. Order another copy for those in your network who are sitting on the fence and need a little help in determining the extent of the damages wrought by the Bush administration. Amazon.com has a nice price on the book right now: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0393058506/

3. Forward this message to other like-minded people who might not have bought the book just yet.

As Molly Ivins says, "You need to read this book, and when you do, you’ll find there’s only one possible response: it’s time to get mad, for most of the media are in denial about how far the takeover of this country by the radical right has already progressed."

Thanks so much,

Monteiro and Company

I really hope they sent this email to Tom. No doubt he's off donating copies at the local library now. (That's Tom Maguire, the anti-Krugman, who has his usual Tuesday Krugman post up. All right, no more links for you.)

FOX: On the Meet the Press you said something about Iraq. You said "President Bush has said (the war in Iraq) is the centerpiece for the war on terror. It isn't. It's a sideshow. It's simply their easiest means of access to attack American soldiers. That's all it is." You really think that Iraq is only a sideshow?

CLARK: For the war on terror it's a terrible distraction and we should have gone directly after Osama Bin Laden. Let's be clear about what happened. This administration decided to go to war against Saddam Hussein, or at least to set all the plans in motion, while we were still bombing Afghanistan and when Tommy Franks should have been challenged to come up with the plans to finish the job against Osama Bin Laden. He was apparently preparing plans to brief the president and secretary of defense on Iraq. We let Osama bin Laden get away. He's there in the mountains of Western Pakistan. Newsweek magazine can find him. I don't know why we can't. And I propose we have a joint US-Saudi force to go after Osama bin Laden. Let's finish this job on terrorism.

FOX: Excuse me just one minute... I just want to add onto that. While our men and women are dying in Iraq is it proper to call it a sideshow?

CLARK: Our men and women in Iraq are doing a fabulous job. They're doing a great job. I love them. I respect them and I honor them and. My problem is with the president of the united states. He's the one responsible for this. As he told us. He was going to make the decision when to go to war. He did. Our men and women are doing everything their country has asked them to do. But for the war on terror it's not the right thing that we should ask them to do. Don't you dare twist words into disrespect for the men and women in uniform. I love those men and women. I gave 34 years of my life to them. You better take my words the right way...

FOX: One thing our military advisors have assured us is that there is nothing but respect that one should have for your military career and for your respect for those who are now in the military. As a father of a marine, we both share that respect for men and women in the military. So don't get me wrong on that. I just wanted to make clear what you mean by that statement which you made. I just quoted your own statement.

CLARK: I think you're trying to distort my meaning. I want to make it very clear, and I think you've said I made it clear. The sideshow is not the men and women in uniform. It is the leadership of the president of the united states who would get us into this. And I think we need to be very straight in covering this. I'm not afraid to say what's right and wrong in this country. And I'm speaking out, David. And I'm telling you this. That war in Iraq is a war that did not have to be fought.

FOX: All right, General, Again. We uh... We were just reading back your statements. I'm sorry you got so upset at.. at our having done that. But that's all we did. We didn't have any implication beyond that.

CLARK: You did have an implication. [unintelligble] I find it very unfair.

FOX: No, general. We were just trying to figure out what it was that you meant.

CLARK: Well you got it now.

What's remarkable here is that Clark managed two things: he understood 1) what was being misrepresented, and 2) why. Fox was playing the old "you ain't no stinkin' patriot" game, hoping Clark would back off his statements. I imagine it's hard in the moment to identify how you're being duped and respond to the smear behind the fake question (Dean's been caught a number of times). But Clark did exactly the right thing: he identified the smear, called Fox on it, and embarrassed them into backing off. I hope liberals and Democratic candidates take notice of this; it's a winning strategy to beating the slimeball tactics of Fox and Co.

____________________
Initial post: Josh Marshall
Calpundit update, with a link to
The Clark Sphere, with a transcription of the interview

He told of collecting the pictures of soldiers killed in Vietnam from their families, so the paper could use them for obituaries. “This is the moment,” he said, using his now-familiar campaign phrase, “where we can reconnect with the world community,” noting in a nod to the rest of the field, “every candidate is ready to go forward to create a new America.” Exiting the stage area he flashed the audience a peace sign.

And not only that, but Tom's got the wrong juggernaut. There is indeed a moving trailer reserved with 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. written on the "destination" line, but it ain't Dean whose gonna be drivin'. We Kucitizens are merely lying in wait to spring the revolution on America come February. Deanies will then get on board the DK truck...

(He does, however, warrant a nod for apparently coining the phrase "Cuckoo for Kucinich," which I will hereafter use as often as possible.)

Schmidt's seizure came a month after he and thousands of other Oregonians lost their prescription-drug benefit because of state budget cuts. In Schmidt's case, the state stopped paying for two drugs, including Lamictal, an antiseizure medication that costs $13 a day. He ran out of pills eight to 10 days before his seizure, his family said.

His hospital bill for the first five weeks ran 64 pages and totaled $272,364 -- about $7,200 a day. That does not count doctor fees. His care in the convalescent homes costs about $7,000 a month, not including several much more expensive hospitalizations. The total bill is likely in the $1 million range, his family said.

How Schmidt's medical costs will be paid is not clear, but taxpayers will foot the bill in one form or another. Payers include federal Medicare, because Schmidt was covered by Social Security Disability, and the state Office of Medical Assistance Programs. And hospitals may have to write off part of the bill as "uncompensated care," a loss that eventually leads to higher insurance premiums for everyone.

This is the kind of governance you get when the idealogues control the conversation--whether they be leaders in the Taliban or nuts like McIntire. The worst part is, it's unlikely he or any of those failed lawmakers will ever be held to account. Somehow, they'll still try to blame it on Democratic mismanagement.

On his visit to London this week, President Bush is likely to be greeted by as many as 100,000 demonstrators objecting to the United States' policy in Iraq.

U.S. presidents visiting England on a state visit typically ride with the queen in an open carriage to Buckingham Palace, but it was concluded that it would be better for Bush to travel in an armored limousine flown in from the United States. Presidents often deliver a formal address to Parliament, but this time it was cancelled out of concern that Bush might get heckled -- as happened when he spoke to Parliament in Australia.

Imagine if Bush were visiting someplace where the United States weren't so popular.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) has a poll up on his website asking about Senate nominees. The poll is worded in a completely loaded way, of course, asking: "Should the Senate exercise its Constitutional duty to provide the President's judicial nominees with an up or down vote?"

What he means, of course, is "Should the Senate shirk its Constitutional duty to advise and consent on the President's judicial nominees and become nothing but a rubber stamp?"

The right answer is No, and so far, No is winning by a big margin — 86-14 as of this writing.

Obviously, this is reflective of nothing more than organization on the left flooding the system. Seems like the liberals are rallying the troops far more effectively--which in itself is somewhat instructive.

General Clark said the joint United States-Saudi commando force would be similar to groups formed by the American military and police forces in Colombia while he oversaw United States military operations in Latin America.

Again: hmmm. Columbia's our model for success with this scheme? I'm still not seeing the wisdom.

The way I see it, there are only downsides. Al Qaida's main target was initially the Saudis, whom Osama thought were traitors to his brand of Wahabism. As Afghanistan and Iraq fester with the gangrene of terror, I don't see how teaming up with the Saudis helps the situations there. But far worse is that joining with the Saudis completely undermines the US's stated goal of bringing Democracy to the region. It reeks of political expediency at the risk of long term consequences. If the US is genuinely concerned about fostering democracy in the region, it needs to team with nations at least inclined in that direction. The Saudis are probably last on that list, behind even Iran.

Clark's supposed to be the Democratic savior because of his foreign policy acumen. Fans have overlooked his skeletal domestic agenda, confident that the foreign policy issue is the one on which this election will be decided. Okay guys, here's where the rubber meets the road: what's so hot about this plan? So far the blogosphere's best known Clarkies, Kevin and Josh, have not weighed in. I'd like to hear what they have to say.

Only a few of the 116,000 private sector jobs created in October provide good incomes: 6,000 new positions in legal services and accounting--activities that reflect corporations gearing up to protect their top executives from Sarbanes-Oxley.

The remainder of the 116,000 new jobs consist of temps, retail trade, telephone marketing, and fund raising, administrative and waste services, and private education and health services...

Many of the new jobs do not pay enough to support a family. The temp and retail jobs are 40 percent of the total...

Then, via Wampum (happy first anniversary), an interesting debate on masculinity. First, the offending article, by somebody called Kim du Toit (go to Wampum if you want the link--I choose not to juice his stats). It's the usual Michael Savage rant, poorly written, a lot of whining from a guy who doesn't seem to be dealing well with society. (The implicit irony in a long, whining rant about society not being macho always eludes these jokers.) Responding to this is Philosoraptor (one of the best blog names I've heard), with a 6,500-word opus. If nothing else, it makes me delighted to see that my blog looks like a collection of haiku by comparison. The Philosoraptor (with a nom that this Emma Goldman can appreciate: Winston Smith) gets the irony, but instead chooses to riff on something different:

"I'm torn about it also because there is, in fact, an important and true point in the essay. I’d put the point this way: we’re in danger of undervaluing virtues like courage and self-reliance that are traditionally thought of as masculine. Now, I’d add—though du Toit might not--that for almost all of human history we’ve done just the reverse, undervaluing virtues like kindness and cooperation that are traditionally thought of as feminine.

I'm not sure I agree. While there's ample evidence to support a thesis of the feminization of culture, there's ample evidence to support just about anything. We exist in the age of analysis (not, probably, information), and every idea has its day, every meme its moment. The feminization theory is one of the more potent because its promoted across the vast right-wing conspiracy.

But let's think a moment. That same right-wing network uses violent didactism as its discourse. Even the women, like Coulter, leer and lunge. Their very language is the language of hyper-masculine agression. Meantime, America's invaded two countries in the past two years, and has increasingly adopted Darwinian models of social policy. I find it rather absurd that in 2003, of all years, I'm supposed to take seriously the idea of a feminized America.

(Which is not to say that the Philosoraptor's not a great read.)

The left should have learned from Newt Gingrich that rage impedes understanding — and turns off voters. That's why President Bush was careful in 2000, unlike many in his party, to project amiability and optimism.

But what Kristof fails to distinguish is that authentic anger is a very different thing than mock outrage. Newt Gingrich was swept into office precisely because of his anger. His mistake wasn't in getting angry, it was in not cooling off and moving to the people's business.

America's temper is slowly rising. Republicans have the Presidency and both houses of Congress and yet still push the most violent form of partisan politics. Democratic anger isn't some kind of fetishwear, like the flight suit the President donned, to woo voters--it's the real thing. America's being hijacked, and Democrats are finally doing something about it. What people seem to miss is that the Democrats for the first time do have a plan, and it's starting to look mighty cohesive. Part of the reason the Democratic Presidential race has bored Americans is because there aren't huge policy differences. They don't disagree dramatically on the economy, social services, or the war, so are left to squabble about style or details.

Anger is sometimes good. If the colonists hadn't gotten mad enough to dump tea into the Boston Harbor, who knows what might have happened. You just have to have more than anger. You just have to have a plan to channel the anger into change.

(As to Kristof's other sidebar about religion, that's an issue too, but it was odd he threw it into this article.)

Exit polls released Monday help explain Republican gubernatorial victories last week, finding that Haley Barbour overcame high black turnout with overwhelming support from whites in Mississippi while Ernie Fletcher capitalized on ill will toward the scandal-plagued Democratic incumbent in Kentucky....

In Mississippi, 33 percent of voters were black -- 3 to 6 points higher than in VNS exit polls in the past three presidential elections -- and 94 percent of them voted to re-elect Democratic Gov. Ronnie Musgrove.

But 77 percent of whites backed Barbour, propelling the Washington lobbyist and former national Republican chairman to victory with 53 percent of the overall vote.

Dean's right: the Democrats have effectively bought into the southern strategy by not appealing to non-racist whites. Because of the population advantage, whites voting together control the results. Right now they're voting for very conservative Republicans. If the Dems make some inroads into that population (winning, say a third of them), they can win some key states. The Republicans were quick to characterize the results in Mississippi and Kentucky as harbingers of 2004. I think they're right:

Looking ahead to 2004, pluralities of around 45 percent in both states said they definitely would vote for Bush if the presidential election were today while about 35 percent definitely would vote for someone else. Those who haven't firmly made up their minds comprised 20 percent of the gubernatorial electorate in Kentucky and 17 percent in Mississippi.

Bush is polling at 45% in the heart of his base? Yeah, that's a harbinger, all right...

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm coming to your question. Believe me, I am. Let me finish. Let me start over again, though. No amount of money can truly compensate these brave men and women for the suffering that they went through at the hands of a very brutal regime, at the hands of Saddam Hussein. It was determined earlier this year by Congress and the administration that those assets were no longer assets of Iraq, but they were resources required for the urgent national security needs of rebuilding Iraq. But again, there is simply no amount of compensation that could ever truly compensate these brave men and women.

I guess, since nothing can truly compensate--well, great! Nothing's what you get. The full exchange is remarkable: McClellan rolls out the "brave men and women suffering at the hands of a brutal regime" schtick about fifty times--that is, whenever a reporter repeats the question, "so what you're saying is that you're stiffing them, right?"

I miss Ari...

A pro-business former mayor of the capital was leading Guatemala's presidential elections, while an ex-dictator accused of human rights abuses was trailing in third place, according to preliminary results released Monday.

With 20 percent of the vote counted, former Guatemala City Mayor Oscar Berger had 47.6 percent of the vote compared with 26.4 percent for center-left candidate Alvaro Colom and 11.2 percent for retired Gen. Efrain Rios Montt. Election officials said final results would be released at a news conference midday Monday.

Portions of the script leaked to the media in October, spurring a fury among conservative activists determined to protect Reagan's legacy. A fictionalized scene showing Reagan dismissing his wife's urging that he fund AIDS treatment ("They that live in sin shall die in sin," he responds) sparked particular outrage.

"That's not based on something he ever said, and we found that very troubling," Christine Iverson, Republican National Committee spokeswoman, said in a telephone interview Wednesday. "I think anyone who knew Ronald Reagan knew he was a very compassionate person."

And yet he was also a person whose authorized biographer recalls hearing him contemplate aloud that "maybe the Lord brought down this plague (AIDS)" to enforce the Ten Commandments.

Asked to clarify the philosophical distinction between the two statements, or why the RNC didn't complain about the fictionalized, if heroic, dialogue attributed to President George W. Bush in "DC 9/11," Iverson accused me of working a political bias and told me to put my editor on the phone.

The RNC's webpage, by the way, is a trip. Click on through for a journey into the heart of bizarro world.

Because the White House is in charge, the media and the public are quick to draw cause and effect conclusions to fiscal policy and economic performance of the nation. But while fiscal policy has a lot to do with the subtle machinations of the economy, the big boom and bust cycles have a lot of
other factors as well.

So, for instance, the Democrats are far too eager to claim that Clinton "brought us" the dot com boom and that Bush is responsible for the bust. And Republicans are too eager to say the bust was a Clinton leftover and Bush is responsible for the recovery. The truth is that the dot com bubble had little to do with the nation's fiscal policy and the bursting of the bubble didn't either. Sure, you give the nation $400 checks and there is going to be a short term boost in spending that will give you a little short term growth, but the macro economy is as much about monetary policy, international economic conditions, and timing as fiscal policy.

Second, it is a losing battle to claim that what Democrats stand for will be better for the short- and medium-term economy--it won't. Making corporations pay no taxes, stripping all environmental regulations, and providing no social services will boost the economy--of course. But just because the GNP does not reflect them does not mean there are not real costs to such a policy.

Worsening environmental conditions will impose a real cost on public health and poor education and welfare will cost the country in the long run. I think the Dems are too often drawn into these losing positions about their economic policy and then pointing to short term results. Instead, they should be up front and say, yes, we are for a more just, more clean, more educated, more caring and more equitable society and we are willing to sacrifice some short term gains to achieve this in society. But in the long run the country will be more prosperous because of it.

Iraqi officials, including the chief of the Iraqi Intelligence Service, had told the businessman that they wanted Washington to know that Iraq no longer had weapons of mass destruction, and they offered to allow American troops and experts to conduct a search. The businessman said in an interview that the Iraqis also offered to hand over a man accused of being involved in the World Trade Center bombing in 1993 who was being held in Baghdad. At one point, he said, the Iraqis pledged to hold elections....

The overtures, after a decade of evasions and deceptions by Iraq, were ultimately rebuffed. But the messages raised enough interest that in early March, Richard N. Perle, an influential adviser to top Pentagon officials, met in London with the Lebanese-American businessman, Imad Hage.

Risen was also on NPR this morning discussing the story. Analysis to come...

Republicans have made notable gains in a number of key swing states. Michigan, Minnesota and Iowa ­ three Midwestern states Al Gore won in 2000 by very slight margins ­ have all experienced significant shifts in party ID toward the GOP. And the five-point advantage enjoyed by Democrats in Florida in the run-up to the 2000 election has evaporated. In polling since Sept 11, 2001, 37% of Floridians call themselves Republicans, 36% Democrats.

What's not totally clear is what the trends are now. The polling took place in August and mid-October, but I can't discern whether all items were polled then or different sections from the report. Clearly, the President and the GOP were looking far better in August than now. Bush's numbers didn't start falling until more recently, and they're still falling. One assumes that these results are more positive than they will be a year from now if the economy and Iraq situation remain unchanged. This is somewhat confirmed in another section in the report, where pollsters found "Despite GOP gains in party identification after Sept. 11, the electorate is evenly split over President Bush's reelection."

Foreign Policy
I was surprised to learn that although there was a bump after 9/11 in Americans' desire for retribution and an increase in xenophobia, these have returned to pre-9/11 norms.

Another very surprising finding is on the notion of "peace through strength" ("the best way to ensure peace is through military strength"). Predictably, Republicans endorse that strategy strongly (70%), but no more than historically. Democrats, on the other hand, endorse it less now. About half have historically believed in that policy, but it dipped to 44% this year, the lowest ever, and the greatest gap with Republicans.

So where do you think independents fall--with Dems or Repubs? Ready?--with the Dems. Only 51% support the idea, and the percentage has fallen. I was really surprised by this, and it goes to show that conventional wisdom on the issue may be wrong.

This is an absolutely fascinating section of the report, and I'd do a disservice to try to summarize things. Instead, I'll just close with this little fact and let you go examine the numbers for yourself. (I'll definitely keep reading, and no doubt unavoidably posting, on the findings.)

On the question "I am very patriotic," the percentage of Americans who completely agree is revealing.

Democrats
1999 - 49%, 2002 - 50%, 2003 - 48%

Republicans
1999 - 64%, 2002 - 63%, 2003 - 71%

So after 9/11, Americans' sense of their own patriotism was pretty much unchanged. That is to say--before it became politicized. But in the past year, Democrats have been very slightly less willing to identify themselves as completely patriotic while Republicans are screaming it from the mountaintops.

I'll hazard a guess: the pundit-despots of Coulter, O'Reilly, and Hannity (et. al.) have tried to link up the war, the President, and patriotism into one pretty little package. But while it hasn't affected Americans' views on the war, it has been useful in getting the faithful to scream along, "I'm no traitor, Ann--I'm a patriot just like you!" I hate to say it, but this is exactly what Bob Altermeyer predicted would happen based on his 30+ years of studying authoritarianism. He calls people who are willing to toe the line in this manner "prefascist." And it's why Dean and Kucinich have found such receptive crowds: a lot of Americans have quietly gotten the heebie-jeebies over this traitor/patriotism talk.

Democrat John Kerry accused presidential rival Howard Dean of lacking principles and flip-flopping on key issues Thursday, hoping to convert the front-runner's fumble over the Confederate flag into a sweeping indictment of Dean's policies and personality.

Poor John. This is the death rattle of a man who's trailing by 14 points in a primary that will likely spell his doom. And negative is definitely the wrong way to go about it rallying, too. He'll only provoke derision, not enthusiasm for his own campaign among the base who are tuned in now. And because New Hampshire is so important for the two New Englanders, the first time the majority of Americans hear his name, it will be when they read the headline "Dean Cruises in New Hampshire, Kerry Finishes Third." (Of course, they'll have to read the text of the article to learn that Dennis Kucinich, hot off his second-place showing in Iowa, grabbed the two spot in New Hampshire as well. Right?)

For the sake of those of us who want to beat Bush, John, would you mind knocking off the attacks?

For some people, the Confederate flag is a loathsome symbol. But we all know what Dean meant. And we know Dean is not a racist.

In the LA Times, Earl Ofari Hutchinson, author of The Crisis in Black and Black today wrote:

Democratic presidential candidate Al Sharpton is shooting from the lip again, and it doesn't help his cause or his constituency....

He doesn't have a real shot at the nomination, and his antics make him — and not Dean — appear to be anti-black.

Clarence Page drives home the bonehead point--but he doesn't think he's a racist:

Maybe so, but Mr. Sharpton's persistent appeals to racial solidarity are a double-edged sword for his party, too.

Whether he realizes it, Mr. Dean is following the Page Principle of Racial Politics: When race is the issue in a presidential race, Democrats lose. When class is the issue, they win.

Low-income whites, for example, often have voted against their own economic interests in the name of racial solidarity, particularly in the South.

Joan Vennochi, Boston Globe:

The piling on of Dean for racial insensitivity, with Sharpton leading the charge, runs the risk of looking way out of proportion to the original offense. Dean should have said he wants to represent Joe Sixpack or the average Southern Joe. That is what he meant taken in the context of similar remarks over the course of the last year.

The Times was perhaps the most critical, characterizing Dean as a pugnacious bumbler, hinting that he may not be ready for prime time. It seems like a contortionist's position--criticizing him in the absence of anything critical to say. They also seem to let off the accusers, who, it seems to me, very clearly did imply Dean's a racist:

Now, Dr. Dean is going to have to demonstrate that his Confederate flag moment was a one-shot, recoverable gaffe and not a symptom of something more haunting, like a pattern of misspeaking or a hardheaded combativeness that makes it impossible to give way with grace. He obviously is no racist, and no one who criticized the flag comment imagined that he is. But he waded unthinkingly into an issue that almost anyone experienced in national politics knows must be handled with great care.

This is a pretty brief survey--I didn't do an exhaustive search. But in my quick spin around the editorial pages, the closest I saw to someone agreeing with the critics was at the Miami Herald, and it was fairly mild criticism (still closer to bonehead than racist). So he'll have to recover from the "bonehead" charges. Fair enough. They're a lot easier to handle than "racist."

"Once we identify solid leads the majority does not want to pursue, we would attract more coverage and have greater credibility in that context than one in which we simply launch an independent investigation based on principled but vague notions regarding the use of intelligence."

The Dems know that whatever they do will be immediately denounced as partisan. Because of the ugly politics the President has already played--implying Dems are unpatriotic, unsupportive of war--they know the White House is likely to characterize any investigation as a "comfort to the enemy." (On the radio this morning, I heard a Republican sound bite to that effect on this issue.) So when Dems write about "greater credibility," it's clear to me what they're thinking of.

I could be wrong on all of this, and it will be interesting to see what develops over the course of the coming hours and days. My first blush look at the issue, though, doesn't incline me to think the Dems have done anything particularly egregious.

Sharpton: "First of all, Martin Luther King said, 'Come to the table of brotherhood.' You can't bring a Confederate flag to the table of brotherhood."

Lieberman: "Governor Dean ought to be more careful about what he says. It is irresponsible and reckless to loosely talk about one of the most divisive, hurtful symbols in American history."

Kerry: "It is simply unconscionable for Howard Dean to embrace the most racially divisive symbol in America. I would rather be the candidate of the NAACP than the NRA."

Gephardt: [Dean appears to believe] "that if we sacrifice our support for reasonable gun legislation like the assault weapons ban, we will win the support of those that disagree with us on bedrock Democratic values like civil rights."

Edwards: "The last thing we need in the South is somebody like you coming down and telling us what we need to do."

You could almost hear them hooting with glee, so delighted were they to lay the race card on the table. But who's wrong here? Everyone knows Dean's not a bigot: no one has ever suggested it and there's no evidence of it. So the criticisms are what--that he wasn't polite? Actually, the criticisms are that he is a racist, though no one making them has the balls to admit it--they just want to smear him without having to come out and say it. And the reason they're making the accusations isn't because they give a shit about race--it's to tar Dean. And who suffers? Anyone who cares about the issue of race in America. The other candidates are determined that so long as the subject is on the table, it will be there as an inert, stable element, unable to rile emotions or cause genuine healing. Invoke MLK and stop--that's a "race discussion" in the Democratic Party today.

After the flap, Dean clarified what was already apparent: "This country needs to engage in a serious discussion about race and that everyone must participate in that discussion." Dean, clearly, is the only one willing to do so. (Inviting confederate-flag wavers into the discussion is a prerequisite to discussions on race. Would you hold a summit about the Israeli conflict and not invite the Palestinians? Everyone has to be at the table.)

In last night's debate, John Edwards apparently ran across the room and got in Dean's face, bleating, "Unless I missed something, Governor Dean still has not said he was wrong. Were you wrong, Howard?"

No, John, he was exactly right. You were wrong. You (and Al, John, Joe, and Dick) are the ones who owe the apologies.

"At its best, [it's] violently exciting; at its worst, banal and monotonous."

The debacle in Iraq? No, sadly it's the new Matix movie. Damn!

U.S. fraud statutes protect against waste of tax dollars at home, but none expressly prohibit war profiteering and none expressly confer extraterritorial jurisdiction overseas. The Leahy-Feinstein-Durbin amendment would criminalize "war profiteering" -- overcharging taxpayers for any good or service with the specific intent to excessively profit from the war or reconstruction efforts in Iraq. The bill also prohibits fraud and false statements in any matter involving a contract or the provision of goods or services in Iraq. These new crimes would be felonies, subject to criminal penalties of up to 20 years in prison and fines of up to $1 million or twice the illegal gross profits of the crime. Leahy described it as "strong and focused sanctions" that are narrowly tailored to criminalize and create tough criminal penalties for fraud or excessive profiteering in contracts, here and abroad, related to the war or reconstruction efforts in Iraq.

It was a pretty clever game of hide and seek. The issue started when a bipartisan group of senators sent the provision to conference. There, of course, the House Republicans refused to consider it. But get this: they used as their cover the fact that the President wasn't giving them any advice on it. Imagine, an administration in which so many cabinet members, advisors, and--not insignificantly--the Vice President were recently in the employ of those very industries targeted by this legislation, and it has no public opinion. I'm absolutely shocked.

Without presidential oversight--well, the House Republicans didn't feel right passing it. And then the Senate Republicans, they just hung their heads and sighed, deeply saddened over their powerlessness in the face of House opposition. Said Pete Domenici: "If the House says no, we can’t do anything about it. We can’t dump the whole bill just because [a provision on profiteering] isn’t included."

So what we have is a deeply enmeshed administration stocked with corporate insiders who give secret contracts to companies for whom those very insiders used to work. And now Republicans, in killing anti-profiteering legislation, have effectively said to those companies: please rip off the American taxpayer.

I don't know if MoveOn.org takes requests or not, but I would love to see an action alert on this issue.

NEW YORK (AP) -- Job cuts announced by U.S. companies more than doubled in October from the previous month, providing more evidence that the nation's economy is in a period of jobless expansion, according to a report from an outplacement firm.

Chicago-based Challenger, Gray & Christmas Inc. said Tuesday that in October companies announced plans to eliminate 171,874 positions, compared with 76,506 jobs in September. It was the highest monthly level since October 2002, when 176,010 job cuts were announced.

The surge in October ended a streak of five months when job reductions fell below 100,000 per month.

But, via Political Aims, we get this ray of sunshine in the grim night of the Bush economy.

Members of the United Food and Commercial Workers Local 655 ended a 24-day labor dispute Friday morning when they voted overwhelmingly — 82 percent — to accept a new 47-month contract. They returned to work Saturday.

The really impressive news, according to Jake Rosenfeld at Political Aims, is that it was the citizens who refused to shop there who ultimately forced the strike. "According to my sources on the ground, public opinion stuck with the workers until the end, with empty parking lots eventually forcing management back to the bargaining table." As I wrote earlier, this is critical to workers, and all workers--not just those on strike--stand to benefit.

Barraged by accusations from conservatives that it was distorting the legacy of a president, CBS announced Tuesday it was pulling "The Reagans" miniseries off the air.

"Although the miniseries features impressive production values and acting performances, and although the producers have sources to verify each scene in the script, we believe it does not present a balanced portrayal of the Reagans for CBS and its audience," the network said in a statement.

Yeah, right. Chalk one up to the 'phants: they have won the Mother of all Miniseries Battles.

BIRMINGHAM, Nov. 3 -- President Bush on Monday blamed the ongoing guerrilla attacks in Iraq on terrorists trying to intimidate the United States, and he vowed to "never run" from the mounting chaos and casualties.

Bush gave two speeches in Alabama and made no specific reference to the helicopter downing on Sunday that killed 16 soldiers, the single deadliest attack against U.S. troops in Iraq. A senior aide said the president kept his remarks broad to "reflect reality without getting bogged down in one day's headlines."

...In a second speech, to a reception that raised $1.85 million for his reelection campaign, Bush said "Saddam holdouts and foreign terrorists" -- "a collection of killers," he called them -- were using attacks to try to throw Iraq into chaos. "We will not be intimidated," he said.

Kurtz picks up the meme and runs.

When the Bushies say they want the bad news put in perspective, do they really mean they don't want it reported at all?

I ask this because of a piece out of Baghdad by veteran New York Times foreign correspondent Raymond Bonner. He reflects the anger that some U.S. officials are feeling toward the Fourth Estate, but also cites instances in which they try to suppress, downplay or minimize bad news.

In other words, even as the president complains about the "filter" of the national media, his team in Iraq seems to be doing some filtering of its own.

And then there's Broder, who kicked it off a couple days ago.

The single most striking impression from watching Bush in his session with White House reporters was the president's defensiveness. Barely two weeks ago, the White House set out to "correct" the negative cast it said the Washington press corps had placed on Iraq with a series of upbeat statements from Bush, Vice President Cheney and other top officials.

That effort was cut short by the leak of a memo from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld questioning how much progress was really being made in the war on terrorism and describing prospects in Iraq as "a long, hard slog." The White House offensive was further overwhelmed by the news bulletins that produced the Tuesday headline in USA Today, "Violence in Iraq reaches new level."

You don't think the Post is a little irritated about that "filter" comment, do you?

Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich: It is urgent for the United States to become closely involved in the efforts to reach a peaceful agreement which protects Israel and which provides for the creation of an autonomous Palestinian state. Additionally, such an agreement must call for the rebuilding of the Palestinian areas which have been devastated. The US can help to lead the way in such an agreement by participating in rebuilding housing, schools, hospitals, businesses, roads and other infrastructure. This is necessary because economic stability is a precondition of political stability. The US must foster a climate of negotiation so that the Palestinians and the Israelis can come to an agreement of the sharing of water rights and on provision of mutual security. Such agreements would engender trust and confidence building and create the possibility where the parties can then deal with the issues of borders and right of return. I believe the government of Israel can help take a step in the direction of setting the stage for negotiations by stopping the building of new settlements and by ceasing in the building of walls. The United States lost an opportunity to bring peace to the region when it decided to wage war against Iraq. We must be mindful that the cause of peace is difficult to advance if we simultaneously are pursuing war. My administration will take the initiative in peacebuilding.

After nearly five months of prisoner interviews, document searches and site visits, "We know the regime had the greatest problem with the 150-kilometer limit" on missile ranges, said Hamish Killip, a former U.N. arms inspector now working with the Iraq Survey Group, a CIA-supervised body appointed by President Bush to lead the hunt for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Hussein and his most senior military commanders saw the range limit "as an invasion of their sovereignty," Killip added. They fumed because hostile neighbors might hit Baghdad with missiles, but Iraq would be unable to answer in kind.

The bluffs about WMD--as even armchair quarterbacks theorized--weren't to hide those programs, but to hide the fact that they didn't have those programs.

Again, one reads these reports and wonders: how long is the defense of incompetence going to serve this administration?

"The Supreme Court refused Monday to enter the long-running fight over an enormous monument depicting the Ten Commandments and the renegade judge who wants to keep the biblical list on display in an Alabama courthouse.

"The court quietly rejected appeals from suspended Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore, who had argued that the monument properly acknowledges 'God as the source of the community morality so essential to a self-governing society.'"

Seemed like a no-brainer, but the bizarro world reality has begun to shake my confidence.

While Halliburton has had to counter many accusations since the Pentagon first announced the contract, the company has certainly benefited from the dangerous assignment in Iraq. Revenues neared $4.15 billion in the period, up from $2.98 billion last year, largely because of the work in Iraq.

Operating income in the company's engineering and construction group jumped fourfold to $49 million, from $12 million the previous year. The company's energy services business, however, saw operating income drop to $170 million, down from $200 million a year ago.

If you're not Halliburton -- if you're, say, a taxpayer -- well, maybe not so good. But then, what are you going to do, right? In times of war, companies prosper. It's the American way.

Or maybe not.

A little over a month ago, Robert Landauer, writing in the Oregonian, suggested that Congress should put a limit on excess profits. It's an idea that, according to Landauer, Congress has regularly acted upon.

In other U.S. wars, though, a national consensus developed that it is obscene to profiteer -- to prosper outrageously, scandalously -- on the patriotic sacrifice of others. Cartoonists' caricatures of this type of corporate Croesus changed remarkably little in the century between the Civil War and the Korean War. He was portrayed as a homburg-hatted, boutonniere-vested, gold-pocket-watch-flaunting, cane-waving, cigar-chomping, porcine plutocrat -- a self-dealing gouger.

His profits, it was realized, come out of taxpayers' pockets. In three of our nation's 20th-century wars, Congress and presidents agreed that the national emergency did not justify allowing the gougers to pick and strip the public pocket. (We also had a windfall profits tax on oil companies during the early 1980s' gasoline shortage.)

This is an issue the Democrats should pick up. It hits at exactly the pressure point of controversy in this war. Democrats believe it was an unnecessary war waged to profit the administration politically and economically. The necessity of the war will remain an open question, but if the Republicans want to remain credible on the profiteering argument, they'd be compelled to support an excess profit cap. In either case, it's a winning position for the Dems.

Furthermore, it highlights a theme the Democrats are going to need to make if they want the nation to trust their foreign policy more than the Chickenhawks': responsibility. Going into the war on faulty intelligence was irresponsible. Going in without UN support was irresponsible. And most obviously, going in without a plan for reconstruction was irresponsible. The Chickenhawks love the drama and grandeur of war (as long as they're viewing it on CNN) -- it aggrandizes their vanity. But their plans for fighting terror have always been misguided and irresponsible. If the Dems fashion a platform that includes issues like war profiteering, they'll drive home that point of irresponsibility. It's a winning hand.

Bush's Merit Pay Plan Is Stalled in Congress
It looks as though the White House has failed to get the job done this year in promoting its proposed Human Capital Performance Fund. The fund, announced early this year as part of President Bush's 2004 budget plan, was supposed to provide $500 million that agencies could tap to award higher raises to their best workers....

Critics, including lawmakers from both parties, said Bush's fund was unlikely to provide federal workers much of an incentive for good performance. Even if fully funded, it would represent only 0.5 percent of the overall civilian payroll of about $100 billion.


Box Cutters Found On More Planes
Box cutters were found on US Airways planes in Boston and Philadelphia on Tuesday, and federal officials said they were investigating how the tools made it on board. It was the second such discovery on U.S. aircraft in less than a month.


The Clean Air Wake
Folks in the general counsel's office at the Environmental Protection Agency had a fun Halloween party Thursday. It was billed as a wake for the Clean Air Act.

Acting General Counsel Lisa Jaeger wasn't around, but we're told that about five dozen career staff from the counsel's office and from around the building attended the seventh floor event.

There were wanted posters everywhere of Jeffrey R. Holmstead, assistant administrator for air and radiation, sporting a mustache. The posters said: "Wanted: suspected in the untimely death of C.A. Adams. [CAA is the common shorthand for the Clean Air Act] Reward: $27,500 per violation per day." Those are the penalties for violations of the CAA.

Threats Overstated by Bush Official, Critics Contend
The Bush administration's point man on nonproliferation has exaggerated the threat posed by Syria, Libya and Cuba in an effort to build the case that strong action is needed to prevent them from developing weapons of mass destruction, former intelligence officials and independent experts say.

With news like this, "irresponsible" seems like a fairly sober, objective criticism. I'll avoid giving the after-the-colon analysis on each point--it seems obvious. Pointing out that the policies are irresponsible has two handy rhetorical advantages. It leads naturally to the faults of the policies and what better policies would be. It's a criticism with an imbedded solution, and it avoids personal attacks, keeping the discussion on the policies. As voters look for a reason to abandon the failed polices of the White House, they'll want this kind of clear, impersonal appeal. Responsibility is a great device.

Worried about how former president Ronald Reagan and his wife, Nancy, are portrayed in an upcoming CBS miniseries, the Republican Party asked the network Friday to submit the program to historians for review or label it as not historically accurate.

"... I respectfully request that you inform your viewers via a crawl every 10 minutes that the program is a fictional portrayal of the Reagans and the Reagan Presidency, and they should not consider it to be historically accurate," [said RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie].

Nothing says defensive like overweening interest in a miniseries.