Welcome to the Twilight Zone, I mean, Iowa

In Iowa, Mitt Romney has launched a campaign to, in the words of Chris Cillizza, "redefine former Gov. Mike Huckabee (Ark.) as too liberal for the voters of Iowa."

He has a shot. Conservatives like Bob Novak are already pointing to Huckabee's relatively liberal record on fiscal policy, and the new Romney ad campaign highlights some of Huckabee's positions on immigration as governor.

But what I think is really interesting about this ad is how it hides the threats to Romney's social-conservative credentials in plain sight. The ad points to conservative positions on abortion and gay marriage as two points of similarity between Romney and Huckabee, sweeping under the rug Romney's flip-flopping on choice and previous opposition to constitutional gay marriage bans for Massachusetts and for the U.S.

No hablan

All the Democratic candidates, except Biden, appeared last night for a debate on Univision, the nationwide Spanish-language TV channel. (NYT)

The Republican presidential candidates, interestingly, all declined Univision's offer of a GOP candidate debate. You've gotta have a pretty good reason to blow off the nation's largest Latino TV audience when you're running for president of the United States. (A reason that begins with "I" and rhymes with "schmimmigration"?) Doesn't bode well for the R candidates long-term if they all made this choice.

Romney vs. the YouTube snowman

"I think the presidency ought to be held at a higher level than having to answer questions from a snowman."

Well, there are a lot of things that the presidency ought to be held at a higher level than.* But aren't we being a bit intolerant here, Mr. Romney? (WP)


*I tried to avoid ending that sentence with a preposition but it was totally beyond me how to do it.

Damn, did it again!

The fascinating and the just plain weird

Like many of us, I am always wondering who is going to be the next Ross Perot. Might one of the also-rans in either party break off and make a run for it? Would it be someone sufficiently quirky to live up to the Perot legacy? For this reason, Ron Paul, Texas congressman and sometime Libertarian party presidential candidate, sort of fascinates me. He has some serious word-of-mouth support-building going on right now, to judge by the huge number of random people who call in to C-SPAN or comment on blogs in favor of his presidential candidacy. He was one of 2 Republicans to vote in favor of de-funding the Office of the Vice President.

But he does not fascinate me nearly as much as Mike Gravel.

18 months later...

Amazing. Gonzales may well be here for the duration. The Republican performance on the Senate no-confidence vote yesterday (NYT), plus Bush's public statements of support for his buddy (Reuters, most recently), point to --->no resignation.

It does make some sense. Until recently, the surest way to retain an appointed office in the Bush administration has been getting publicly attacked (with resignation demanded!) by the left. The Bushies really close ranks around their own when threatened. None of this "resigning to spend more time with his family" bollocks. It's a decider thing. Genius, really, and an important step toward creating your own realities.

Except, of course, for those specifically marked for the slaughter, like Scooter Libby and Donald Rumsfeld. These folks are not answering only for their own sins, but also, representationally, for those of the entire administration. I figure they are kind of like the guy who gets burned at the stake or thrown in the bog at the end of the year to appease the gods and ensure a good harvest.

Perhaps if you have a problem with a particular Bush appointee and want him out, you better do what you can to make sure he gets tapped to be the sacrifice. I'm not so sure direct public pressure for a particular official's firing works at all. It seems to have the opposite effect, in fact. Take Rumsfeld (please!): during the Abu Ghraib revelations, when many Americans were calling for his head, he offered to resign. Twice. (CNN)

Thoughts?

[insert post about GOP imploding here]

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Here is a place where I could write about how Condi Rice does not take the best notes during meetings (SF Chron). Or about how some congressional Democrats and Republicans seem to be engaged in a breathless struggle to out-scandal each other ("We'll see your bribery and raise you one pedophile!"). Or about the potential for hard-right Republicans to get ousted by the conservative Christian vote that they have so carefully cultivated (WP). But I think the time has come to just sit back and watch Fate spin this one out as she desires.

PS: When did substance abuse stop being reason enough to question a lawmaker's fitness to serve and start being just an excuse for other, worse stuff?

Open for business.

There's a lot of talk about the influence of special interest money over political decisions in Washington. But it's not really such a black-and-white quid pro quo. It's not like lobbyists give lawmakers PAC contributions and take them out to fancy dinners and actually get specific legislative favors in return.

Except for when they do.

Rep. Ney Admits Selling Influence (WP)

Comment from a friend: "How much more could you possibly degrade the halls of Congress. I mean, sure, you could get caught having sex with a donkey in a committee room, and that would be unseemly. But it wouldn't violate the public trust like this."

Without DeLay

I am sure conservatives across America are delighted that the uber-corrupt Tom DeLay is holding himself up as their poster boy, as he did in his farewell speech today. It makes me sad for the many conservatives I know who hold themselves to high standards of moral and intellectual integrity.

However, after the last few years of capitulation and fence sitting by some in Washington, I find myself almost having to agree with DeLay's ruminations on the value of partisanship in the speech today.

"It is not the principled partisan, however obnoxious he may seem to his opponents, who degrades our public debate, but the preening, self-styled statesman who elevates compromise to a first principle ."

I think the loyal opposition would do well to adopt this attitude of DeLay's. But keep everything on the up-and-up, 'kay?