"Do you suppose we could get Bush a BJ..."

Overheard at today's Houston progressive blog luncheon:

"Do you suppose we could get Bush a blowjob so that he can be impeached?"

Considering that a majority of Americans polled now believe he should be, maybe soliciting an oral favor won't be necessary.

Pictured: Rick Perry and Greg Abbott (can't tell which is which)

...and their GOTV volunteers, who will be appearing in Austin tomorrow.

From the man who will defeat Greg Abbott next November:

On November 5, the hooded bigots of the Ku Klux Klan will descend on Austin to march in support of the passage of Proposition 2. These masked shock troops of hate do Texans a favor in exposing the real meaning and significance of the proposed amendment in all its shining glory. There could be no greater barometer of what is really at stake in the vote on Proposition 2. The Klan does not show up anywhere unless it is to support bigotry and hate. Never before has the Klan shown up to support passage of a proposed amendment to the Bill of Rights of the Texas Constitution, because never before has there been such an organized attempt to enshrine the Klan’s brand of hate in the noble charter of liberty and democracy of the people of Texas.

The Bill of Rights of our Texas Constitution of 1876 is one of the greatest charters of individual human rights on the face of the earth. Every Texan who loves our state should be personally offended at this disgusting effort to use it as a forum for the propagation of hate. I know that I am.

Every Texan should also be appalled that the lawyer who has the greatest responsibility to defend the Constitutional rights of the people of Texas, the state Attorney General, instead allies himself with the prophets of hate, as Attorney General Greg Abbott does in his public letter of October 27, 2005, in support of Proposition 2. I know that I am, and I know that Texans are entitled to a lawyer for the people who understands that every Texas citizen should have equal legal respect as a 100% equal part owner of our Constitutional democracy.

The world will be watching Texas in the vote on Proposition 2. Fellow Texans, let’s show the world what we’re made of. Take a stand against hate. Take a stand against the Ku Klux Klan. Take a stand against politicians who ally themselves with the Klan. Take a stand for liberty and democracy. Show the power of Texans’ support of our Constitution. Show the power of your vote. Vote down Proposition 2.

A squabble over Prop 2 among Republicans

An amazing exchange between the Executive Director of the Republican Party of Texas and one of their precinct chairs in Harris County (my edits to protect privacy appear in red). There was a message ahead of Ms. Sykes' response, which follows:

Mr. (name redacted),

We have no association with, nor control over, the KKK. I think the fact that we have been working partners with such as Pastor Blackwell, Pastor McKissic and the Cornerstone Baptist Church shows that in itself. To equate the KKK’s idea of white supremacy with the RPT standing for traditional marriage is ludicrous. Thank you for your comment and for representing to me the Harris County GOP Precinct (redacted).

Jennifer Sykes
Assistant to the Chairman & Executive Director
Republican Party of Texas

And to that, this:

Dear Ms. Sykes:

Thank you for your response to my message of October 31, 2005, although I am a bit surprised to receive such a stern rebuke. I neither stated nor implied that the Republican Party of Texas has any "association with, or control over," the Ku Klux Klan. I did not "equate the KKK's idea of white supremacy" to the RPT's position on Proposition No. 2. You falsely accuse me of both of these things merely to characterize me as "ludicrous"—not a very respectful attitude toward a fellow member of the GOP.

Over 1100 rights flow automatically from the legal state of marriage. Not long ago, we watched Britney Spears walk down an aisle in Las Vegas with an Elvis impersonator officiating and obtain all 1100 of these legal rights for a marriage she later termed "a joke"--a marriage that lasted only 55 hours. If "traditional marriage" is in jeopardy in this country, it seems to me that the good Republicans of Texas should perhaps look in their own back yards before setting out to blame the decline of traditional marriage on homosexuals.

Many Republicans feel that gay Texans pay their taxes and should be entitled to the same legal rights as everyone else. Many Republicans feel that passing laws to deprive one group of citizens of constitutional rights to which they would otherwise be entitled harks back to the days of segregated waiting rooms, all-male juries, laws against interracial marriages, and "whites-only" drinking fountains—all ideas which were vigorously supported by the KKK, but now lie "in the ash heap of history," to borrow Ronald Reagan's colorful phrase. Many Republicans feel that this is not the direction Texas should be heading in the 21st century. Most of all, many Republicans are offended by the presumptuousness of GOP leaders in taking for granted that all Republicans are in agreement on this issue.

While your desire to distance the GOP from the KKK is understandable, the KKK's alignment with the GOP on this issue is not coincidental. Flies are drawn to garbage wherever it may be found. Proposition No. 2 was motivated by an animus toward gay people and the bald arrogance of declaring that heterosexuals shall be forever superior to homosexuals through policies of law.

Declaring groups of people to be unworthy of the same rights as others is something the KKK knows a lot about. The GOP's pretensions of self-righteousness and its harrumphing about how different the GOP is from the KKK have a very hollow ring in the context of Proposition No. 2.

(name withheld)
GOP Chairman, Harris County Precinct (redacted)
(address withheld)

Harry gave 'em hell.

Hunter, at Daily Kos:

In a move worthy of a Wild West gunfight, Minority Leader Harry Reid changed the political landscape on a dime, and cleaved the Republican talking point brigades into shards and splinters. This move was political brilliance on more fronts than I can count. ...

• First, obviously, it forced the Senate to agree to finally investigate the massaged and/or bogus Iraq War intelligence, after stonewalling the investigation for over two years.
• Second, it shows the American people that the Democrats are serious about the Republicans' ongoing dismissal of critical national security matters, even if Republicans like Frist and Roberts have proven over the last two years they aren't trustworthy or responsible about pursuing them. And that Democrats are also dead serious about the Iraq War, and investigating any frauds or manipulations used to send us into the quagmire.
• It absolutely nails the Republicans to the wall on Plamegate. President Bush, the Senate, and now the entire nation knows that senior administration official Scooter Libby, chief of staff to the Vice President, was the first administration official to leak the name of a covert CIA agent to the press, in retaliation for her husband's political stance. And we now know that Rove was the second, and that the two had some conversations as to Plame's status and what they were telling reporters about it.

  And yet Bush didn't fire either one of them. He allowed Libby to resign after being indicted for obstructing the further investigation into the White House leaks. And Rove remains by his side today, while the investigation continues.

  Today, by demanding a response to Senate obstruction efforts, Reid squarely brought the national discourse back to the ongoing now-criminal obstruction efforts in the White House -- a criminal obstruction that had in the last days been made into a talking point praised by Republicans as a Republican victory over the investigation. And it masterfully highlights the fundamental dishonesty of a Republican Senate with no intentions of getting to the bottom of either of them. Frist squealed like a stuck pig at even the mere thought of having to discuss either matter.

Go count a few more of the fronts.

David Sirota has some questions to which he wants answers. He's been asking those same questions for quite awhile now.

The Democrats are going to the mattresses on this, and on "Sloppy Seconds" Scalito. The GOP heads are exploding.

Hell of a "Boston Legal" episode last night on the subject, too.

It's on. Pop the corn.

Damned liberal media again

From the transcript (you'll find this almost halfway down):

FITZGERALD: I would have wished nothing better that, when the subpoenas were issued in August 2004, witnesses testified then, and we would have been here in October 2004 instead of October 2005. No one would have went to jail.

Had Judith Miller, Matt Cooper, and the other members of the media who were manipulated by the assistants to the President and Vice President testified when they were issued the subpoenas, then Scooter Libby would have been indicted in October 2004.

That would have made Bush's re-election more than a little unlikely.

John Kerry would be President, the Senate and/or the House would likely be under Democratic control, and the current Supreme Court nominee most certainly would not be a Fascist.

Not to mention Stephen Breyer as Chief Justice.

Just sayin'...

Update (11/2): Susan has much more.

I got yer jack-o-lantern right here

Alito, but maybe also Luttig

Here's what President Katrina has been up to since we last saw him on Friday praising Scooter Libby as a "great patriot"(bold emphasis is mine):

Bush spent the weekend at Camp David huddled with Miers, who remains his White House counsel and is therefore in charge of the judicial selection process, along with Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr., who originally advocated Miers as the first choice to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. As the three talked, White House officials contacted prominent conservatives to test the reaction to various candidates.

One group consulted was the Concerned Women for America, whose decision to oppose Miers last Wednesday became one of the final blows to help kill the nomination. Janet M. LaRue, the group's chief counsel, said it received a call from the White House on Saturday and liked what it heard.

"Alito and Luttig have always been at the top of our list," she said in an interview. "We think either of them would be a supreme pick. There isn't a thing stealthy about them. They've got a long, proven record of constitutional conservatism."

Other conservatives yesterday also embraced Alito, in particular. "Alito, Luttig -- all these people are solid conservatives," Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) said on CBS's "Face the Nation." On CNN's "Late Edition," Gary L. Bauer, president the conservative group American Values, described his criteria for a Supreme Court justice and added, "Certainly, Judge Alito fits those characterizations."

My prediction is filibusters and nukes.

Update: I forgot to mention that they call him "Scalito":

A judge on the Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Alito has been dubbed "Scalito" or "Scalia-lite" by some lawyers because his judicial philosophy invites comparisons to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's.

"That is not one of the names that I've suggested to the president," Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., told "Late Edition" on CNN. "In fact, I've done the opposite. I think it would create a lot of problems."

Reid said Bush would be making a "mistake" were he to settle on a hard-liner simply to appease the far right in his party, especially after conservatives' wrath undermined Miers' nomination.

Yes. A big mistake.

Ten reasons to oppose gay marriage

On November 8, Texans will cast ballots on a number of constitutional amendments, among them one which defines marriage as being exclusively between a man and a woman. So when you go into the voting booth, please keep these mind:

1) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

2) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

3) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of outlandish, immoral behavior. As Senator John Cornyn has pointed out, people may even choose to marry their pets, because box turtles have legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

4) Marriage is a fundamental institution and cannot be expected to be revised on the basis of societal whim. After all, women are still property, blacks still cannot marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

5) Heterosexual marriage will be damaged if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour, alcohol-induced, impulsive marriage would be devastated.

6) Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

7) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

8) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the citizens of an entire country. That's why there is only one religion in America.

9) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why our nation has expressly forbidden single parents to raise children.

10) Gay marriage will alter the foundation of society for the worse; we could never adapt to new social mores. This is similar to the way our society has failed to adapt to automobiles, the service-sector economy, and longer life spans.

Be sure to vote against proposition 2.

"Official A"

As Hunter at Kos notes, the Associated Press cites no fewer than "three people close to the investigation" who identify "Official A" as none other than the Turd Blossom himself.

Why is "Official A" the only person not identified by name or title in the indictment?

On or about July 10 or July 11, 2003, LIBBY spoke to a senior official in the White House ("Official A") who advised LIBBY of a conversation Official A had earlier that week with columnist Robert Novak in which Wilson's wife was discussed as a CIA employee involved in Wilson's trip. LIBBY was advised by Official A that Novak would be writing a story about Wilson's wife.

Why the secrecy around the identity of "Official A"? Why the deference to his anonymity? What's going on with "Official A" that isn't going on with anybody else?

At the end of this Fitzmas Day...

... the gifts revealed aren't as significant as the gifts still to be.

**For example (as I asked earlier), from whom did the Vice President learn of Joseph Wilson's wife as a CIA officer? Tenet has claimed it was not he, and the indictment only identifies a "senior officer of the CIA". As Mssrs. Lang and Johnson indicate, we may only learn that at a trial of Mr. Libby.

**Who is the "undersecretary of State" mentioned on page 4 of the indictment who was working with Libby to get information on Wilson?

Why, it could be Marc Grossman, or it could be John Bolton.

**And who is "Official A"?

**Finally, the gift revealed puts to rest the neocon bromide that Valerie Wilson was not undercover, as well as revealing that Libby -- and Cheney -- knew she was undercover. Page 5, top, item #9:

On or about June 12, 2003, LIBBY was advised by the Vice President of the United States that Wilson's wife worked at the Central Intelligence Agency in the Counterproliferation Divison. LIBBY understood that the Vice President had learned this information from the CIA.

Why is this noteworthy? As Josh Marshall clarifies, CPD is where the spies work, not the analysts. Libby and Cheney, with their top security clearances and close association going back to their days at the Pentagon, knew Plame was NOC. There was no way they could not know.

And yes, as Fitzgerald indicated, the investigation continues, but it's no longer just about Karl Rove.

It's about the Vice President of the United States.

Early Fitzmas present or a Pandora's box?

Maybe Fitzmas will finally come tomorrow...

... but today's news about the scuttled Supreme Court nominee, predicted here earlier in the week, produces the same combination of thrill and angst as does the looming announcment from special prosecutor Fitzgerald.

So now what will a petulant, bitter, angry, politically wounded President do -- especially since his brain is preoccupied with self-preservation? Long used to getting his way, Bush has been rumored to revile the Unreligious Wrong going back to his pre-Goobernatorial days. And the fundies now wear the blood of Harriet Miers, one of Bush's closest confidants, on their hands.

So will he throw the Christian lions a piece of red meat, such as Priscilla Owen or Edith Jones -- or will he tell them to "bring it on" again with a 'moderate' nominee like Al Gonzales or Edith Clement?

Is he a uniter (of just the GOP) or a divider (of the entire nation, again)?

Bush is foremost a rewarder of loyalty, and he prefers Texans, and he's got a bit of a retribution hangup, so I'm guessing he taps the beaner.

(Hey, Carlos Mencia uses that word all the time, so don't call me a racist. Besides, I'm married to a Cuban.)

*heavy sigh*

... on the opposite side of the upper deck near the left-field foul pole, 89-year-old L.L. Godwin sat in his chair, his cane tucked under one arm, a blanket over his legs and an Astros cap tipped back on his head.

He, too, attended countless games of the Astros, Colt .45s and, before that, the Houston Buffs. His granddaughter — Debbie Rasmussen of Tomball — recalled how as a child she used to cuddle into bed with her grandfather on visits and fall asleep to the sounds of Astros games on the radio.

It was a loss. The Astros' first World Series is over. But for many, the taste was worth the wait.