Saturday, August 27, 2005

Up even earlier than usual order to leave for Crawford and Camp Casey in about an hour.

Words and pictures about today will appear here tomorrow.

Friday, August 26, 2005

What is Tom DeLay doing now?

He's posing with Elvis at a nursing home -- err, campaigning in his district.

Go read this absolutely hilarious post at In the Pink Texas.

Their snark, and that of their commenters, is the best ever of late.

Update (8/28) : Charles Kuffner has a more polite take.

Last night's Daily Show interview

with Christopher Hitchens is now available for your viewing at Crooks and Liars.

You've heard it about it, you've read about it, now you can see it for yourself.

Prairie Weather links to the Texas Observer's in-depth expose' of the tangled web of connections binding the GOP together -- that's a must-click, by the way -- and adds this:

This is a big article about a big mess and these are only the opening paragraphs.

Bottom line: a real investigation, which McCain and the Indian Affairs Committee is supposed to hold, would pull down too many "key" figures in the Republican Party and (worse?) cut off big funding sources.

Now are we motivated to change the color of the Senate and House in 2006?

Well, if we are, we shouldn't count on any help from the SCLM; Editor and Publisher points to the Los Angeles Times piece that shows how the editors of TIME magazine sat on the Plame-Rove-Matthew Cooper disclosures because they did not want to influence the 2004 election:

The article details conversations involving Karl Rove, "Scooter" Libby, Matt Cooper and Robert Novak. But near its conclusion it raises an emerging issue, promoted by Michael Wolff of Vanity Fair, among others: If Time magazine had gone public about Rove's conversations with Cooper, it might have had some impact on the Bush - Kerry race for the White House last year.

Not until this summer did Cooper ask Rove for a waiver to talk to the grand jury, and ultimately the public, about their conversation. The L.A. Times article today notes that he did not do this before “because his lawyer advised against it.” But the reporters add that in addition, “Time editors were concerned about becoming part of such an explosive story in an election year.”

The story concludes: "The result was that Cooper's testimony was delayed nearly a year, well after Bush's reelection."

That worked out well for everyone, didn't it?