To Senators Dianne Feinstein and Charles Schumer;

When, in the future, you retire from the Senate and sit down to write your memoirs, I predict that this week's vote in the Senate Judiciary Committee in favor of Attorney General nominee Michael Mukasey will not rank as one of "the votes I'm proudest of in the Senate" for either of you.

You both knew that voting for Mukasey was the wrong thing to do, and yet you did it anyway for reasons that can only be described as "political expediency." Not exactly a profile in courage for either one of you.

Continue Reading »

The first column I wrote this year on the presidential campaign (5/23/07) took a decidedly unconventional view of the primary season: What if all the pundits are wrong and we DON'T crown a winner on February 5th? Is it possible, in other words, that no winner will be anointed and the campaign will continue -- perhaps all the way to an open party convention?

Jump forward six months, and the pundits are finally beginning to wonder about such a possibility. Chris Cillizza, political blogger for the Washington Post, has just written an article which explores this question in detail, for both parties -- if there is no one clear winner on February 5th, then what could the delegate map look like? It's a great read if you're into wonky "what if" speculation, and the best breakdown I've seen yet of how it all could play out.

Continue Reading »

So here we are, with a year and a day to go before the 2008 presidential election. But what will we be talking about next November as we head to the polls?

I know it is supposed to be my job to prognosticate the future by throwing a dart at the wall and loudly proclaiming "This is where we will be!" -- but today I am turning over the prediction business to you instead. Because I am interested in what other people think the momentous issues of next year's election will be, no matter who is left running. So let me know what you think.

The questions are hard to answer, but easy to ask. Here's just a random sampling of what the possible "big issue" could be this time next year.

Continue Reading »

About the Cartoonist  |  Reprint Policy

Since this column has not been afraid to coin new terms, I submit for the blogosphere's approval the Bush Doublethink Corollary to Godwin's Law: "Stating your opponents are ignoring a new Hitler while at the same time advocating tactics which the Nazis themselves used." The sheer Orwellian audacity of doing so should be apparent to any sane and coherent individual. [References: Godwin's Law, and also Reductio ad Hitlerum]

Bush has earned this moniker for saying recently that congressional Democrats ignore Osama Bin Laden and al Qaeda, and are making the world a more dangerous place, by refusing to confirm his nominee for Attorney General because he refuses to call waterboarding torture. Or something like that. It's hard to fathom what Bush is really thinking at this point. Here is the relevant quote:

Continue Reading »

The Bush administration is pushing a narrative on national security issues (and has been for some time now) which can be summed up as: "Trust us, we know what we're doing -- and we're doing it to keep you safe." Two facets of this issue are on the front burner this week: warrantless wiretapping and torture (or as they put it "extraordinary interrogation techniques," one of many euphemisms they've trotted out). But what seems to be lost in the debate are two data points that just don't fit in with their pre-packaged narrative. And, once again, the mainstream media are largely ignoring these points since they'd have to... you know... commit an act of journalism to confront them squarely.

Continue Reading »

About the Cartoonist  |  Reprint Policy

I boarded the train in one of those Eastern European capitals that make you feel like you've stepped back about a century in time. The train car itself did nothing to dispel this notion, as the windows looked like they had last been cleaned promptly after World War I... and forgotten ever since. The upholstery on the seats was worn and threadbare, but when I sat down in one, I found that at least they were well-padded and comfortable. I settled in and looked around at my fellow travelers.

There were a few groups of people strung out throughout the train car, who all ignored me completely. They looked like tired commuters on their way home, and this proved to be the case, as they all got off at the first dozen or so stops on the outskirts of the city. I thought I would be alone for the rest of the journey, but at the last suburban stop a very old woman got on and sat down across from me. She looked a little spooky, with an eyepatch over one eye, and a bandanna tied over her hair. A mystical perfume which hinted at far-off bazaars wafted its way over to me. Her wizened visage examined me critically, and I was surprised to see a small smirk develop on her face as she did so.

Continue Reading »

The time has come for Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to hand in her resignation. The latest revelation that the Blackwater personnel involved in the recent Baghdad shooting were given immunity by the State Department for giving statements about the incident should be the final straw for America's patience with Rice to come to an abrupt end.

Of course, the real time for Condi to have handed in her resignation in an honorable administration should have been September 12, 2001. Remember, at this time Rice was National Security Advisor to the president. The NSA's job description is to "take all the intelligence from the various intelligence agencies in the U.S. government and put it all together for the president to act upon." Her spectacular failure to perform this job would have meant disgrace and a shameful resignation in virtually any other administration in history.

Continue Reading »

Six House members -- three Republicans and three Democrats -- have joined together to introduce legislation strengthening the 1973 War Powers Act which (if successful) could mean a showdown on the separation of powers before the Supreme Court. This showdown may determine once and for all the limits of the president to order American troops into battle.

Of course, I have no idea what chances this new legislation has for passing Congress as a whole, but the astonishing thing is that it is being ignored almost totally by the mainstream media, which is a shame. Because it deserves debating now, while the White House seemingly is preparing the American public for yet another war (this time against Iran).

Continue Reading »