I just had an opportunity to review video footage of Bill Frist’s recent remarks in Tennessee and I can say without a doubt that he will be running for president in 2008.

Haven’t had much time for posting in the past week, but I can’t resist sharing this video of our bunny Dig-Dug performing her favorite trick :

In case you’re wondering, Diggy also does this all the time and it never gets old.

Greetings, friends. My name is Brian, and I’ll be posting something this evening. It’s a tale about a dewey-eyed, sensitive multinational media conglomerate that woke up one morning, a few weeks after announcing a deeply disgusting and totally unsurprising publishing decision, and realized what it was doing was wrong, and that it had a duty, a moral obligation, to do the right thing and reverse that decision.

The right thing for the shareholders, I mean. Of course there’s the pretty much unanimous public revulsion at the entire project, even at the basic idea that our societal plummet down the bottomless pit of dissolving standards has taken brought us so rapidly to this point — obviously that’s what Fox and Rupert Murdoch are concerned with, is public sentiment, and Fox’s repsonsibility to serve the public:

“I and senior management agree with the American public that this was an ill-considered project,” Mr. Murdoch said. “We are sorry for any pain this has caused the families of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown Simpson.”

They’re concerned, all right, and oh dear heavens are they sorry. They’re concerned about public backlash hurting their bottom line, and they’re sorry the book-buying, TV-watching public has by some miracle not been able to meet Fox’s expectations when it comes to building up our basic depravity enough to pay $28 for a hardbound, 200-page snuff film. Please remember, gentle reader: By having enough of your humanity intact to maintain your horror at how eager Fox was to cash in on Orenthal The Bus-Drivin’ Murderer, you are hurting News Corp’s bottom line. Which means that in some small way, you’re hurting the economy. Which most assuredly means you’re helping the terrorists win. I hope you’re happy, you Baathist stooge.

So yes, in summation, a reminder of an obvious truth: Fox’s decision was a business decision through and through, not a moral one; morals, after all, invariably get in the way when trying to do the kind of business News Corp. likes to do.

P.S. — For those of you worried if the Juice will land on his feet, don’t! Looks like he’s still getting paid in full for the book!

How the hell did this “rap”…

…come out a full year after this rap?



Mario, the games are great, but your rhymes are ill.

And since I should be writing about politics instead of dicking around on YouTube, let’s just consider this hideous co-opting of a subculture’s work and complete lack of understanding by the mainstream a metaphor for James Carville’s stunning cluelessness about the Democratic netroots. I’ll always have a soft spot for Carville and Begala (their books are great), but James would probably be better off yelling at neighborhood kids to get off his porch than continuing to cash in on a reputation he earned in large part because Ross Perot was a spoiler candidate in 1992.

There’s a reason that the first rule in Carville’s “War Room” was “Change vs. more of the same.” More of the same for Democrats this year meant listening to beltway elites like Carville whose bad advice translated into electoral defeat.

The unwanted return of a real class act :

O. J. Simpson, who was acquitted 11 years ago in the 1994 death of his wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend Ronald L. Goldman has written a book and will appear on television telling “how he would have committed the murders if he were the one responsible,” his publisher and the Fox television network said on Tuesday.
. . .
According to a news release, the book and the TV special, which has a working title of “O.J. Simpson: If I Did It, Here’s How It Happened,” will depict Mr. Simpson describing “how he would have carried out the murders he has vehemently denied committing for over a decade.”

This from the same guy who protested his innocence by saying “Even if I did this, it would have to have been because I loved her very much, right?” The fact that this scumbag is going to cash in on the murders he got away with makes me ill. Dammit. I wish he’d just go away and never return.

By the way, isn’t the very existence of an Iraq Study Group a tacit admission that the Bush Administration doesn’t know what the hell they’re doing in Iraq? Don’t we already have people on the government payroll to come up with military strategy and foreign policy? If they need Poppy Bush’s friends to come in and tell them how to do their jobs, then maybe we need more competent people making these decisions in the first place.

Then again, the whole Baker/Hamilton Commission is a fool’s errand anyways. It doesn’t matter how many “experts” Bushie convenes, they’ll never find a solution to a problem that can’t be solved.

One thing about realignment elections like the one we had last week is that the “moderates” in the loser party start looking even better to the mainstream. The religious lunatics aren’t likely to be running the GOP asylum for much longer. After all, if their homophobic GOTV strategy didn’t stop the Democratic landslide, we probably can’t write off the Giuliani campaign as doomed to fail in the primary as we once could. McCain’s a phony and Rudy’s a douche, but they’re both working overtime to stick a shiv in the back of the GOP leadership for which they’ve spent their careers being the moderate front-men. As Atrios notes, the media is in love with their carefully manufactured personas and will happily reinforce any “maverick” posturing they use to market themselves. If we don’t take their 2008 campaigns seriously, Rudy & John could benefit from the anti-GOP backlash as much as Dems.

Scary right-wing homegrown terrorists are at it again :

A California man suspected of mailing threatening letters containing a suspicious white powder to celebrities and U.S. politicians has been arrested and could face federal charges on Monday, the FBI said.

Investigators identified Chad Castagana, 39, of Woodland Hills, California, as the person suspected of sending more than a dozen threatening letters to media outlets and the homes of public figures in various cities, the FBI said in a statement on Sunday evening.

According to a federal search warrant, among those who received threatening letters were Jon Stewart of Comedy Central’s “The Daily Show;” talk show host David Letterman; Keith Olbermann of MSNBC; Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California, who is set to become Speaker of the House of Representatives, and Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, both Democrats.
. . .
In some cases, the threatening letters included expressions such as “Death to Demagogues” and references to Alan Berg, a Jewish talk radio host murdered by white supremacists in Denver in 1984, the document said.

If this is giving you a sense of deja vu, lemme remind you that the 2001 anthrax attacks also targeted members of the “liberal media” and two Democratic leaders in Washington. It’s not just the fake anthrax attacks that are being perpetrated by conservative nuts.

With the report by the Baker-Hamilton Commission coming out soon, let me just go on record as saying that the newly-emboldened Democrats should treat the whole spectacle like the sham that it’s always been. It’s always been a transparent ploy to push bad news past the election. Now that the election’s over, the Democrats should treat this dirty trick (which, by delaying a change of course in Iraq, has cost dozens of lives) with the contempt it deserves. You don’t need James Baker to tell you that Iraq has been turned into an unwinnable quagmire.

From the outset, this commission has been a variation of the same self-investigation, “punt our problems into the future” trick that the Bush Administration has been pulling since they sailed into office. They doubted global warming for years insisting that it required more study while rejecting the findings of their cherry-picked experts as the work of “bureaucrats”. The denied that Iraq didn’t have WMD’s while tarring the men who came back empty handed from the government-sponsored snipe hunts as appeasers or fools. And now we’ve got an Administration-friendly look into the mess George Bush has made and they expect us to believe this is going to change anything?

Even if the Baker-Hamilton Commission is candid in its assessment of Iraq (I trust Bush family consigliere James Baker to investigate Dubya’s folly about as much as I trust the Republican Party to investigate Mark Foley.), I see three possible reactions from the Bush Administration :

1) They take the findings to heart and use them as political cover to do the right thing and get the hell out of Iraq.

2) Get annoyed that the report threatens to burst the Bush bubble by saying something King George doesn’t like to hear. Give the report kudos in public, but insist that the Iraqi situation is so complicated that it requires further study. Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

3) Hold a photo op praising the members of the Baker-Hamilton Commission for their hard work and dedication to their country. Everybody lines up to get their picture taken with the President. In his remarks, the President promises that his administration will “work quickly to look into implementing the commission’s recommendations”. Bush pretends to do make drastic changes, but does nothing.

Of the three, my guess is that (3) is the most likely. After all, that’s how they dealt with the 9/11 Commission and the “McCain” anti-torture legislation. They’ll do their best to make it seem like they’re actually shifting strategy, but it’ll be “stay the course” until Jan. 2009.

UPDATE : John at Americablog has more. According to the Washington Post, James Baker has “been testing the waters for some time to determine how much change in Iraq policy will be tolerated by the White House“. As John says :

Excuse me? So, that means the guy running this panel isn’t going to give his honest advice - he’s only going to give the closest to honest the White House will let him give. That is totally messed up, incredibly dishonest, and it’s the very reason we’re in this predicament to start with. Generals being afraid of giving honest advice, top advisers to Bush being afraid to tell him the truth. It will be a total travesty if Baker only agrees to what the White House is willing to hear, and Lee Hamilton feels obliged to agree to whatever the Republicans want. Then what is the point of this entire exercise?

To provide political cover to the President and the GOP. The Democrats would be fools to treat the Baker-Hamilton Commission seriously.

I was just forwarded an email that’s making the rounds at Texas A&M where Robert Gates is currently the President. First is Gates’ letter to staff and students regarding the SecDef announcement :

By the time you read this, the President of the United States will have announced that he will nominate me to be the next Secretary of Defense. I am deeply honored, but also deeply saddened.

As most of you know, almost two years ago I declined an opportunity to become the first Director of National Intelligence. I did so principally because of my love for Texas A&M and because much of the program we had initiated to take A&M to a new level of excellence had only just started.
. . .
I apologize for surprising you with this momentous decision and announcement, and for leaving as president before fulfilling my commitment to serve Texas A&M for at least five years. I hope you will understand the circumstances that made this necessary and that this appointment comes nearly as much a surprise to me as to you.

I will have more to say to you before I leave (if I am confirmed by the Senate). But I must tell you that while I chose Texas A&M over returning to government almost two years ago, much has happened both here and around the world since then. I love Texas A&M deeply, but I love our country more and, like the many Aggies in uniform, I am obligated to do my duty. And so I must go. I hope you have some idea of how painful that is for me and how much I will miss you and this unique American institution.

At this point, I expect to remain as President of Texas A&M until completion of the confirmation process and a Senate vote. I assure you, you will hear more from me before my departure.

More interesting, however, is the note that accompanied the forwarded letter. (Personal information redacted)

Dear Fellow Aggies (and some who aren’t Aggies but will find this interesting),

By now, you’ve probably heard that Donald Rumsfeld has resigned as Secretary of Defense. (Thank God!) Also, you may have heard that Bush has nominated Robert Gates to be Rumsfeld’s replacement. Gates is a former head of the CIA and, for the past two years, has been president of Texas A&M.

Below is an email forwarded to me by _________, ______ professor at A&M. Those of you who went to A&M might remember ________ as a highly intelligent, fiercely liberal prof who loved to stir things up and encourage his students to challenge the status quo and stand up for what is right.

About a year ago, I was in College Station and visited _____ for a few drinks. He told me then of his admiration of Gates, despite some initial apprehension due to Gates’ background, and for what Gates was doing for A&M. He also said that at a recent faculty party, Gates told him that he thought that Bush was the worst president we’d ever had.

If ______ speaks highly of Gates, he must have something going for him. I hope that Gates will use his new position to try to extract us from the quagmire of Iraq and won’t become just another Bush yes man.

Peace,

________

I’ve got an email out to the professor in question to confirm this, so until I do, take this with a grain of salt.

UPDATE : I knew this was too good to be true. I emailed the professor in question about this incident and he responded “In fact, this is NOT TRUE at all. I’ve never been at a party with President Gates, never had a private conversation with him”. The person who relayed this anectdote, when confronted with this information, responded “I think it is possible that I am mistaken. As I said, there were a few drinks involved.” In vino veritas? I guess not…