november won't wait

in bush country, when it rains, it pours and pours and pours and pours and pours ...

if the republicans think that they can simply batten down the hatches and ride out the cruel storm season that's settled permanently on bush's second term, they're slowly but surely finding out how utterly futile that strategy is. it's a strategy predicated on the hope that the storm doesn't get worse and ends quickly.

cia director porter goss' abrupt resignation was only the latest of a repetitive series of heavily publicized blows to bush's keeling ship of state. before this last thunderbolt, republicans were just getting themselves comfortable with the grim thought of only losing control of the house, like a bunch of convicts settling into electric chairs:

bill kristol: as of right now, republicans will lose the house. (march 5)

mclaughlin group: tony blankley: i think most republican operatives believe, if the election were held today, that they'd lose the house and it would be close in the senate. pat buchanan: the democrats would take the house and they'd have a good chance of taking the senate. eleanor clift: i think a democratic takeover of the house, yes. (april 7)

pundit david brooks even goes so far as to suggest not only that losing would be a good tonic for republicans, but that democrats would actually behave themselves!

there's really a torpor in the administration. they're not doing anything right now. i think it's now likely to move the house — that they will lose the house. and i think house republicans, privately, most of them admit that. for like a year they were saying, "well, we've got it so sewed up with redistricting. we'll lose, but we won't lose the whole house." i'd say about two weeks ago the conventional wisdom shifted and people said, "we're in such trouble. we are going to lose the house." personally, i think it would be good for the republican party because it would make them a little more responsive. it would be good for the democratic party; they'd be a little more responsible. but i think now it's likely they will lose the house. if the democrats can't win now, when are they ever going to win? (april 2)

by now it must be painfully obvious to republicans that their lowered expectations are never going to be low enough. they've wanted to believe that public support would eventually bounce back, from iraq, katrina, the cheney shooting, dubai, gas prices — but they've been proven wrong every time. that's because the lord nelson they put at the helm of their navy turned out to be an ahab who's firmly lashed himself to the wheel and threatens to drag them all the way down to the bottom with him. they made their deal with the devil; they traded their principles for power; now they'll be left with neither.

very soon, if it is not already too late, republicans, as a group, are going to have to throw up their hands and say "enough! we can't take this shit any more! this is killing us!" they are going to have to make a stand. they can no longer afford their meager expectations or their dwindling hopes.

they are going to have to take some kind of proactive and substantive role — one far more meaningful to the electorate than a photo op or a $100 gas bribe — if they hope to stanch this massive hemorrhaging of their electoral prospects. only by enacting real legislation and real reforms that tangibly benefit the electorate will republicans be able to stave off their banishment to the political backwaters. legislation calling for a withdrawal from iraq; for campaign and lobbying reform; for reducing the deficit; for reducing gas prices; for creating jobs and raising the minimum wage; for expanding healthcare.

such an effort necessarily involves taking on their dear leader, head-on, mano-a-mano, just for their own survival. for five years republicans have obsequiously accommodated his every whim, but bush's leprous administration has mutated into a ten-ton albatross, a nosferatu sucking the life-force from the party and dragging it into hell. writing on bush's efforts in iraq and iran, columnist thomas friedman likens the white house to a bunch of drunken drivers:

as someone who believed — and still believes — in the importance of getting iraq right, the level of incompetence that the bush team has displayed in iraq, and its refusal to acknowledge any mistakes or remove those who made them, make it impossible to support this administration in any offensive military action against iran. i look at the bush national security officials much the way i look at drunken drivers. i just want to take away their foreign policy driver's licenses for the next three years. sorry, boys and girls, you have to stay home now — or take a taxi. dial 1-800-nato-charge-a-ride. you will not be driving alone. not with my car. (april 19)

yes, it is well past time to revoke junior's license. so how do republicans strip him of that privilege? the answer lies in challenging bush on his abuse of signing statements.

the boston globe reported how bush has used the signing statements in hundreds of instances to exempt himself from being bound from any law passed by congress:

bush is also the first president in modern history who has never vetoed a bill, an act that gives public notice that he is rejecting a law and can be overridden by congress. instead, bush has used signing statements to declare that he can bypass numerous provisions in new laws. (may 3)

in their challenge to bush, republicans must flatly refuse to recognize any signing statement he attempts to append to any bill. henchforth they must allow bush only to sign or veto a bill, in accordance with orthodox senate tradition. democrats will have no problem joining republicans in such a challenge, especially in defense of strong legislation. already forces are gathering for just such a showdown:

boston globe: the chairman of the senate judiciary committee, accusing the white House of a ''very blatant encroachment" on congressional authority, said yesterday he will hold an oversight hearing into president bush's assertion that he has the power to bypass more than 750 laws enacted over the past five years. ''there is some need for some oversight by congress to assert its authority here," arlen specter, republican of pennsylvania, said in an interview. ''what's the point of having a statute if ... the president can cherry-pick what he likes and what he doesn't like?" (may 3)

but will republicans recognize the true magnitude of the opportunity materializing before them?

bush will no doubt put up a fight to preserve his enlarged domain. if republicans have any hope of restraining ahab, and honestly wish to rehabilitate themselves in eyes of their constituents, they will make their stand here, take their case loudly before the public and force bush to respect all aspects of the laws they pass in their entirety. would bush veto a bill calling for a withdrawal from iraq? or one for reducing the deficit? especially if such bills were backed by a veto-proof majority from both parties? if congress chooses to ignore him in exactly the manner he's ignored them, who will give a fuck?

it's time for congress to show bush what it's like to be powerless. i can find no other means of redemption for republicans other than an act of defiance and integrity. it very well may be too late for them in the eyes of the electorate. it may not win them back any voters that already have been lost. at this stage of the game, it may be simply a matter of keeping the voters they still have, but what other options lay open to them?

washington post: "this administration may be over," lance tarrance, a chief architect of the republicans' 1960s and '70s southern strategy, told a gathering of journalists and political wonks last week. "by and large, if you want to be tough about it, the relevancy of this administration on policy may be over." (may 7)

but the fate of the republicans is insignificant compared to the fate of the country. as long as bush is allowed to hang onto his license and remain petulantly unchallenged, as long as he threatens nuclear armageddon, pisses away the treasury and reduces every agency to a fema, the entire crew, republican, democrat and independent, remain on course to go down in flames with him. dear leader is tearing the country down around his thick granite skull. with a guaranteed new fiasco every week for the next six months, november can't wait.

in truth, i don't expect the republicans to take the high road. that would require a unity they no longer exercise. had they been on the high road, had they placed country before party, they would not now be writing their own obituary. i expect them to fracture and take their chances locally running on their individual merits. they will take what looks like the easy way out. so divided they will fall, hunkered in their cabins, hoping to wait out the storm. but the electorate won't wait with them.

so if november comes to find the republicans reduced to irrelevancy, they will have only their own cowardice to blame. they will not be missed.

al gore: we simply cannot afford to wait 1,000 days to put the brakes on the bush agenda ... the level of cynicism and crass political calculation ... is truly breathtaking. (may 7)

endgame

the bush presidency, to borrow a phrase from its dour deputy, is in its last throes.

32 years ago it was a "second-rate burglary" that brought down the highest office in the land. today it appears, at first glance, far less — mere snippets of "almost gossip", delivered, we are told, in an "offhand, casual manner" — that now threaten again to collapse an office already on its knees beneath a debilitating barrage of ceaseless scandal.

bush's folly can be traced from his team's opening moves, when the texas governor, taking advantage of the climate lingering after clinton's impeachment, made a campaign mantra out of a sacred and solemn promise to usher in an age of honor:

august 11, 2000: i will swear to uphold the laws of the land. but i will also swear to uphold the honor and the integrity of the office to which i have been elected, so help me god. august 13, 2000: americans want to be assured that the next administration will bring honor and dignity to the white house. september 15, 2000: americans are tired of investigations and scandal, and the best way to get rid of them is to elect a new president who will bring a new administration, who will restore honor and dignity to the white house. october 17, 2000: should i be fortunate enough to become your president, when i put my hand on the bible, i will swear to not only uphold the laws of the land, but i will also swear to uphold the honor and the dignity of the office to which i have been elected, so help me god. november 3, 2000: i want to conclude by telling you i understand the awesome responsibilities of this job. i understand the serious undertaking. i understand that when i put my hand on the bible, i will swear to not only uphold the laws of this land, but to answer the calls of the mothers and dads who i see all the time around america, who come to my rallies and hold a picture of their child and look me in the eye and say, "governor, i'm here to say, never let us down again," to hear those calls. i will also swear to uphold the honor and the integrity of the office to which i have been elected, so help me god.

it was a promise he would not forget to reiterate as he swore in his staff:

january 22, 2001: we must remember the high standards that come with high office. this begins with careful adherence to the rules. i expect every member of this administration to stay well within the boundaries that define legal and ethical conduct. this means avoiding even the appearance of problems. this means checking and, if need be, double-checking that the rules have been obeyed. this means never compromising those rules. no one in the white house should be afraid to confront the people they work for, for ethical concerns, and no one should hesitate to confront me as well. we are all accountable to one another. and above all, we are all accountable to the law and to the american people.

but my, what a difference 1900 days make!

even without such stultifying failures as the iraq occupation, the stillborn response to hurricane katrina and the dubious dubai port deal, the grinding investigation into the july 2003 outing of cia agent valerie plame seemed destined to erode the one asset that pundits continue to insist the president still commands:

blitzer: here's what you write in the book. you write: "candidates have to look closely at george w. bush and realize that they cannot win by running away from the leader of their party. rather, they have to identify the single greatest strength the president embodies and put it front and center in their campaigns." "that greatest strength," you write, "is, in fact, trustworthiness." now, we looked at our most recent cnn/"usa today"/gallup poll. in february 2004, two years ago, 55 percent thought bush was honest and trustworthy. that has gone down now, in february 2006, to 47 percent, not even a majority. hewitt: yes. but that's still much better than most of his other numbers on performance. it's his strongest calling card. — the situation room, cnn, march 31, 2006

just as nixon had at the beginning of watergate, bush, speaking through press secretary scott mcclellan, denied all involvement and knowledge in the scandal. he even declared the leak a firing offense ...

september 29, 2003: the president has set high standards, the highest of standards for people in his administration. he's made it very clear to people in his administration that he expects them to adhere to the highest standards of conduct. if anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration.

... and speaking on his own, hinted suspiciously, that despite his sincerest efforts, the leaker might never be found:

september 30, 2003: there’s just too many leaks, and if there is a leak out of my administration, i want to know who it is. october 7, 2003: i want to know the truth. … i have no idea whether we’ll find out who the leaker is, partially because, in all due respect to your profession, you do a very good job of protecting the leakers. october 28, 2003: i’d like to know if somebody in my white house did leak sensitive information.

the press, however, failed the president, despite his sincerest hints. unwilling to suffer jail for contempt, time magazine reporter matthew cooper revealed that both karl rove and scooter libby were his sources on the plame story, forcing bush the next day to refine his position:

july 18, 2005: it's best people wait until the investigation is complete before you jump to conclusions. i don't know all the facts. i want to know all the facts. i would like this to end as quickly as possible. if someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration.

but cooper's revelation had dealt bush's credibility a solid blow; an abc news poll found that only 25% believed that the white house was fully cooperating with fitzgerald's investigation and that 75% thought that rove should be fired if he leaked classified information.

by the time fitzgerald finally handed down his indictment of scooter libby on charges of obstruction and perjury, scott mcclellan informed the press that the white house had decided that the best defense was now no defense at all:

october 28, 2005 : because of the ongoing investigation and legal proceedings, at the direction of the white house counsel's office, all white house officials, including myself, are not going to be able to respond to questions or discuss the factual circumstances of the matter, except as requested by the special counsel, or in consultation with the white house counsel's office.

bush himself issued only his regrets at libby's resignation. a week later came the announcement of an eight-part refresher course on ethics for the staff, no doubt to the collective rolling of eyes from coast to coast.

but as embarrassing as the scandal grew, as tight as the noose became, the president himself remained unimplicated in the leak.

this, of course, would soon change.

explosively.

ironically, it would be libby himself (considered by many the "firewall" between the prosecutor and his employers) who secured the knot, as revealed in fitzgerald's bombshell april filing in response to libby's request for documents for his own defense:

april 6, 2006: mr. libby is said to have testified that "at first" he rebuffed mr. cheney's suggestion to release the information because the estimate was classified. however, according to the vice presidential aide, mr. cheney subsequently said he got permission for the release directly from mr. bush. "defendant testified that the vice president later advised him that the president had authorized defendant to disclose the relevant portions of the [national intelligence estimate]," the prosecution filing said.

after several days of silence, bush would admit, in a cheneyesque display of sophistry, that while he had indeed authorized the leak, not only was the intel no longer classified, but his authorization meant that the leak wasn't really a leak at all:

april 10, 2006: i decided to declassify the nie for a reason. i wanted people to see what some of those statements were based on, so i wanted people to see the truth.

such noble sentiment. nonetheless, bush's noose is threatening to become a gibbet, as the fitzgerald filing also bluntly revealed a basis for conspiracy charges all around:

april 7, 2006: [libby] wants the materials because he thinks they will show that his misstatements were innocent and did not stem from an orchestrated administration campaign to discredit wilson, according to his court filings. fitzgerald's brief uses unusually strong language to rebut this claim. in light of the grand jury testimony, the prosecutor said, "it is hard to conceive of what evidence there could be that would disprove the existence of white house efforts to 'punish' wilson."

it appears that the game the white house has been playing over the last five years is drawing to a desperate close. it was a game in which honor and dignity were nothing more than chips and tokens; morals and ethics just a strategem. it is an old gambit, to be sure, and if there remains anyone left at all surprised by the endgame, it is probably only bush and his once-swaggering team. but now the entire board itself is in near total ruin, with his pawns being stripped, one by one, while the king himself stands naked:

pew research center: until now, the most frequently offered word to describe the president was "honest," but this comes up far less often today than in the past. other positive traits such as "integrity" are also cited less, and virtually no respondent used superlatives such as "excellent" or "great", terms that came up fairly often in previous surveys. the single word most frequently associated with george w. bush today is "incompetent," and close behind are two other increasingly mentioned descriptors: "idiot" and "liar." all three are mentioned far more often today than a year ago. newsweek's johnathan alter: there are not a lot of people who expect him to move very much in the polls. and once you're tagged as an incompetent, that's pretty hard to recover from. gop pollster tony fabrizio : these numbers are scary. we’ve lost every advantage we’ve ever had.

checkmate.

karl rove: super-genius

(cross-posted at daily kos)

i've noticed commenters throughout the blogosphere claim that portgate is actually another brilliant behind-the-scenes rovian masterstroke designed to help the republicans distance themselves from the white house in time for the midterm elections and move cheney's embarrasing shooting cover-up off the front page.

curiously, during the media storm following the shooting i also noticed commenters claim that the cover-up was another brilliant behind-the-scenes rovian masterstroke designed to help the republicans distance themselves from the white house and move the wiretapping hearings off the front page ... and who also had previously claimed that those hearings were arranged to move the abramoff mess off the front page, which in turn was arranged to move the libby/delay indictments off the front page ... ad nauseum.

buried within this "karl rove: super-genius" meme lies a not-very-subtle scandal fatigue, a defeatism and resignation to the idea that rove in his god-like omniscience will always be just one step ahead of us dullards, that the latest counterfeit-scandal is really just a trap, artfully designed to make his gullible attackers look foolish, having taken their eyes off the ball, while ever-boosting the mojo of the republicans. what rot.

juan cole: "i think they get up in the morning and they face a set of situations in iraq and they try to develop policies to deal with those situations, and they get up the next day and there's a new set of situations and they develop policies to deal with those. i think it's reactive. i think it's ad hoc. i don't think there's a big picture. i think they're hoping that they can ultimately muddle through, that things will settle down enough so that they can get out of it with some dignity. i think it's probably a forlorn hope."

portgate and its handling was no more or better planned than was the shooting cover-up or its handling. once again they got caught with their pants down and their bloody red hands in the cookie jar full of cash for their cronies. since a number of our port affairs are already handled by foreigners, they obviously did not expect the public to suddenly notice or care, and are again not prepared to deal with the blowback from such attention — blowback they set themselves up for after five years of stoking their supporters' jingoism and xenophobia.

after having twice delivered the white house to the unlikely george bush, i can see why some would call him a genius. there's no doubt that he's a very sleazy smart operator when it comes to running election campaigns. so sleazy smart in fact that he got himself booted off george sr.'s campaign team.

but genius in one area does not translate to genius in another, and it is of course possible for otherwise apparently smart people to make horrifically bad decisions. nor are they immune to bad luck. while bushCo™ seems to have a talent for electioneering, they display none whatsoever for governing. it could even be argued that they have no real interest in governing, as opposed to ruling — with a big stick, a short leash and piles of treasure to shower on the court cronies and toadies.

just look at bushCo™'s poll numbers: <snark>you'd think a super-genius could keep the sheeple happy while ruthlessly fleecing them.</snark> clinton's numbers remained in the 60s throughout the worst of his pummeling. (presiding over a boom and a surplus obviously helps.) bushCo™ has been reeling from a different new crisis every week and has been badly hemorrhaging supporters since fallujah.

i find it impossible to believe that rove (or any other supposed intelligent being, for that matter) would think that any strategery that would worsen the administration's deathly poll numbers and inflame not just his congressional opponents, but also his apologists and the last of his die-hard public supporters could possibly be a good one. what kind of genuis tries to put out a fire in one room of his house by repeatedly setting new fires in another? a super-genius, no doubt.