Another truly bad week for Republicans

Deputy Attorney General nominee Timothy Flanagan's name is withdrawn after his connections to Jack Abramoff are revealed.

The anti-torture bill is passed by the Senate 90-9 (Texas' John Cornyn is one of the nine voting in favor of torture). The president, stubborn as ever, will veto it anyway.

Hurricane-relief contracts awarded with little or no competitive bidding will be done over.

Bush finally gives up on Social Security reform and additional tax cuts. For the time being.

Tom DeLay fielded a second indictment, and Karl Rove is about to catch his first.

Did I forget to mention that the GOP is tearing itself in two over the nomination of Harriet Miers? Or that two polls now show Bush's support has eroded into the 30's?

It's hard to believe that things could get worse for the ruling party in the days and weeks to come. But they could, if gas prices don't recede, if more of our soldiers continue to die in Iraq and Afghanistan, if someone in addition to Rove gets indicted, if we suffer another terror event ...

There's about a year for the Republicans to regain their footing, along with some semblance of credibility with the electorate, of course. Several people who know more about this sort of thing than me sense a shift in the political landscape of historic proportions.

I come down on the side of history (and my confidence in that outcome will naturally depend on the minority party's candidates doing their part in the next twelve months to present a viable alternative).

Miers gets borked

... and by none other than Bork himself.

A wonderful headline, written by my friend Prairie Weather (whose weather turned a bit more even than ours here in H-Town) and containing the excerpt from ABCNews.com:

Among conservatives, William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard, and the anti-abortion group Operation Rescue called for Bush to withdraw the Miers nomination. Former federal judge Robert Bork whose nomination to the Supreme Court the Senate rejected in 1987 described the choice of Miers as "a disaster on every level."

"It's a little late to develop a constitutional philosophy or begin to work it out when you're on the court already," Bork said on "The Situation" on MSNBC. "It's kind of a slap in the face to the conservatives who've been building up a conservative legal movement for the last 20 years."

Assembling to talk about preventing the next cluster

That's the traffic jam I was in a couple of weeks ago -- I-45 northbound, from Houston to Dallas. Apparently there's going to be task forces and committees and meetings to talk about improving the process of evacuating millions of people the next time it becomes necessary to do so.

I certainly hope they get something accomplished.

Update (10/11): Charles Kuffner and Stace Medellin follow up with good thoughts on the subject.

More indictment rumors swirling -- this time in D.C.

There are two different sources posting scuttlebutt this afternoon regarding indictments, Karl Rove, and the Plame case.

That's right; blog postings about the fact that there are rumors that there will be indictments. Perhaps, after the last few weeks, it's just too good to be true.

Then again, a man can dream ...

Update: The Washington Post reports that yes, rumors are certainly swirling.

Update II (10/6, a.m.): Think Progress lists the 21 administration officials involved in Leakgate, and details their whereabouts, actions, grand jury appearances, etc.

Update III (10/6, p.m.): NYT ...

Stephen Gillers, a New York University law professor, said it was unusual for a witness to be called back to the grand jury four times and that the prosecutor's legally required warning to Rove before this next appearance is ''an ominous sign'' for the presidential adviser.

''It suggest Fitzgerald has learned new information that is tightening the noose,'' Gillers said. ''It shows Fitzgerald now, perhaps after Miller's testimony, suspects Rove may be in some way implicated in the revelation of Plame's identity or that Fitzgerald is investigating various people for obstruction of justice, false statements or perjury. That is the menu of risk for Rove.''

Executive privileges

From the NYT's report on the President's press conference today:

Bush also sent a clear signal that he would resist, on grounds of executive privilege, providing senators documents related to Ms. Miers's work in the White House. At least some Democrats are likely to seek such records, especially since Miers, who has never been a judge, has no "paper trail" of opinions.

"I just can't tell you how important it is for us to guard executive privilege in order for there to be crisp decision-making in the White House," Bush said.

The Constitution does not specifically mention executive privilege, but the Supreme Court has recognized the need for confidentiality between high government officials and their advisers. The court has concluded, however, that executive privilege is not absolute.

How about that; there's no right to 'executive privilege' in the Constitution. Now is that the same thing as 'privacy'?

Sauce for the goose ...