Oooh, nuance!

So, yesterday I figured my blood pressure had slipped a little low. I wandered over to The New York Times to see what David "Are You Smarter Than a Fifth-Grader" Brooks had to say. I mean, I find myself agreeing with both Ed Koch AND Paul Krugman these days, so why not give Bobo a try?

Let's just say, the man did not disappoint.

The first part of the editorial was actually quite well-written. I wondered if my Bizarro-World experiences lately had caused me to hallucinate.

We’re entering an era of epic legislation. There are at least five large problems that will compel the federal government to act in gigantic ways over the next few years.

First, there is the erosion of the social contract. Private sector firms are less likely to provide health benefits, producing a desperate need for health care reform. Second, there is the energy shortage. Rising Asian demand strains worldwide supply, threatening industry and consumers, and producing calls for a bold energy initiative. Third, there is the stagnation in human capital. During the 20th century, Americans were better educated than the citizens of any other power. Since 1970, that lead has been forfeited, producing inequality and wage stagnation. To compete, the U.S. will require a series of human capital initiatives.

Fourth, there’s financial market reform. In an intricately connected world, even Republican administrations cannot allow big institutions to fail. If government is going to guarantee against failure, then it is inevitably going to get more involved in regulating how businesses are run. Fifth, there’s infrastructure reform. The U.S. transportation system is in shambles and will require major new projects.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this is the first time I've seen anyone in the MCM lay out the massive problems that face the next administration so succinctly. My eyes were wide with astonishment and happiness. Was this a new era of substantive political discussion by the New York Times?

Of course not. Read on, if you dare.

All of this means that the next few years will be an age of government activism. You may think, therefore, that this situation is ripe for Democratic dominance. The Democrats are the natural party of federal vigor. Voters prefer Democratic approaches to issues like health care and education by as much as 25 percentage points.

Yet, historically, periods of great governmental change have often been periods of conservative rule. It’s as if voters understand that they need big changes, but they want those changes planned and enacted by leaders who will restrain the pace of change and prevent radical excess.

No, it's as if David Brooks stopped reading history after 1929. But hey, he has to justify his McCain love somehow. Who cares if he completely ignores FDR's four terms in office, during which the New Deal was created and successfully implemented? Or perhaps he is forgetting LBJ and the Civil Rights Amendment?

The only "conservative" American President he could find to justify his preposterous thesis was Theodore Roosevelt, who resembles John McCain about as much as Beverly Sills resembles Britney Spears. His other example was Benjamin Disraeli, because conservatism in England is exactly the same as conservatism in America. [snort] In any case, here is how McCain equals The Rough Rider in the fuzzy brain of Mr. Brooks.

"The true function of the state as it interferes in social life,” Roosevelt wrote, “should be to make the chances of competition more even, not to abolish them.”

John McCain’s challenge is to recreate this model. He will never get as many cheers in Germany as Barack Obama, but for a century his family has embodied American heroism.

Ah, there it is - that delightful soupçon of élitism without which a Brooks column just isn't complete. You know you simply cannot implement change unless your family has been in America for at least 100 years being all heroic and stuff. Otherwise it's just change for change's sake! The White House will be painted in rainbow stripes, the Oval Office will smell like patchouli, and President Democrat will enact legislation forcing all Americans to wear their underwear on the outside. The Horror!

The column is a laughable effort by Brooks, to be sure, but to be fair, conservative propagandists are having a harder and harder time pushing their line these days. After all, Bush has proven that today's conservatism (a toxic stew of X-treme Reagonomics wedded to a Christofascist domestic policy and a neo-conservative foreign policy) is a recipe for disaster - the results of which Brooks readily acknowledges in the first portion of his column. The problem is, how to keep Democrats from another four decades of legislative - and possibly executive - dominance?

Poor Bobo. It's hard work being a Minister of Truthiness these days.

At least I know that in this world where every day seems to be Opposite Day, David Brooks can still be counted on to raise the blood pressure of almost everyone who reads his mind-blowingly crapulent bloviating.

Mission Accomplished, baby.

Ah feel yer pain, Madame Speaker. I know that you're worried that you can't stop the war while impeaching Bush. I know you think that the Democrats won't win in 2008 if you impeach him. I know you may have made a deal of some sort, or perhaps you know the effort will fail in the Senate and you don't want to lose.

But George Bush has been caught out, right there on the TeeVee. He has been lying, fearmongering and warmongering for 4 months about Iran and its "nucular" weapons program, which we now know they had discontinued FOUR YEARS AGO. Come on, Nancy, I'll give Bush a blow job myself if that'll get things going! (Of course, it may take me a while to locate the Presidential pee-pee. I have always maintained that he is anatomically incorrect, like a Ken doll. But I would consider it a small sacrifice for my country.)

And think about it: Weren't we all stunned at the Deciderer's rudeness when he refused to spend more than an hour at the recent Middle East peace conference in Annapolis? He must have been afraid that his secret knowledge about the lack of threat coming from Iran would slip out and *gasp* make peace more likely. We all know that the Rapture can't come that way, dammit!

So come on, Speaker Pelosi. Set the table. America is starving for it.

When will progressives learn that the traditional media lies about Democrats? Apparently, never.

Here's some detailed information about the new FISA legislation STRENGTHENING FISA and giving Bush...nothing.

I must say, I think that Fascists have a point about liberals and progressives. Some of us ARE whiners. Moreover, we are so ready to believe the worst about our representatives that we are very easily led by the rightwing echo chamber into screaming how worthless, how weak, how useless the Democrats are, even when they are doing the right thing. Heckuva job, us!!!

Say what you will about the Fascists, and believe me, I do - they don't give up. It took them 40 years to get where they are today, and they've had a whole six years of sweet, sweet power because of their efforts. They have also succeeded in completely destroying the Republican Party and uniting 70% of the country behind the progressive agenda, but hey! They were committed and they accomplished their objectives for a time. Why can't we borrow some of their spine and determination?

And why can't we acknowledge that yes, Democrats ARE better than Fascists. Yes, they do a lot of things right. Yes, their ideas are usually good. Deal with it. Our side is the right side!

I'm so tired of hearing people bitch and moan about the Democratic Congress. If we won't even take the trouble to correctly inform ourselves, then we shouldn't devolve into hysteria every time a misleading story is planted about in the traditional media.

We should all take a breath before we jump.

Well, color me SHOCKED! Alberto "I'm SMAAAAAAHT!" Gonzales was caught testi-lying AGAIN by Congressional Democrats. This time, it's FBI Director Mueller - who wanted Fredo banned from John Ashcroft's hospital room - who provided the gory details.

Attorney General John Ashcroft was "feeble, barely articulate (and) "clearly stressed" when then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales and White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card visited his hospital room to push for legal approval of a warrantless wiretap program approved by President Bush, according to newly released notes from FBI Director Robert Mueller.

The notes were released Thursday by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), who chairs the House Judiciary Committee that is investigating the legality of the warrantless wiretapping program. Mueller's notes of the March 10, 2004 incident outline a dispute between the Justice Department and the White House over the legality of a National Security Agency surveillance program.

"[Then deputy Attorney General James Comey] tells me Card and J. [Judge] Gonzales are on the way to hospital to see the AG, but that AG is in no condition to see them, much less make decisions to authorize continuation of the program," Mueller writes.

[snip]

Mueller's notes show he attended meetings in Card's office the day before the hospital visit that included Gonzales and Vice President Dick Cheney, among other officials. The day after the visit, Card requested a meeting with Mueller that lasted 40 minutes, after which Mueller spoke to Gonzales and met with Comey. Notes on those meetings are redacted from the released documents, which were sent to the committee from the FBI.

"Unfortunately, this heavily redacted document raises far more questions than it answers. We intend to fully investigate this incident and the underlying subject matter that evoked such widespread distress within the Department and the FBI," Conyers said. "We will be seeking an unredacted copy of Director Mueller's notes covering meetings before and after the hospital visit and expect to receive information from several of the individuals mentioned in the document."

I think it's time to revisit how Gonzales described this incident during his squirm-inducing testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee last month.

In his testimony today before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was asked by Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) to address inaccuracies in his 2006 testimony in relation to the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretapping program. “There has not been any serious disagreement about the program that the president has confirmed,” Gonzales said at the time.

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) recalled that former Deputy Attorney General James Comey testified to a much different version of events. Comey said he had refused to sign on to an extension of the program “amid concerns about its legality and oversight.”

Today, Gonzales said Comey was referring to “other intelligence activities,” appearing to confirm that the Bush administration is operating more than one warrantless domestic spying program. In a heated back and forth with Specter, Gonzales stated:

The disagreement that occurred was about other intelligence activities and the reason for the visit to the hospital was about other intelligence activities. It was not about the terrorist surveillance program that the president announced to the American people.

Of course, later on in the testimony, Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) got Gonzales to admit that the authorization he held in his hand while in AG Ashcroft's hospital room...was for the so-called terrorist surveillance program.

SNAP!!!

Bush doesn't dare fire Alberto Gonzales, the frail dam that's holding back a Democratic tsunami of subpoenas and contempt of Congress proceedings. But I still think that Gonzales may be one of the impending resignations I mentioned this morning. That seat is getting very, very hot for Fredo, and as we know, cutting and running from accountability is what Republics do best...