Oh, I’m not sure if I’m going to have a drinking game or anything during the Biden/Palin debate. That just might get dangerous, and it’s a school night, after all. But I am prepping for the debate. First, I’m reading articles like this one on the ABCNews web site, so I know everything about these two master debaters that I can get my hands on. But I’ve got another task.

You see, I’m thinking when Sarah Palin was answering those questions from Katie Couric and saying sentences that really didn’t make sense, she must have been speaking another language, or in code Maybe only the Fundamentalist Christians can understand her. Heck, in that code she speaks in she could have been saying that when she’s elected they’d go ahead and build that Bridge to Nowhere and use it for the rapture or something, as a sort of stairway to heaven or something. But if she said it in code, how would we know? This is serious, but I’ve got an answer. Practice. Yeah, we’re talkin’ ’bout practice!

Practice at what? Well, now we have the Sarah Palin Interview Generator. It will produce the question and then the patented gibberish to match. I’m going to spend hours at this thing, so I’m definitely going to be ready for the big show Thursday night in St. Louis. Here’s a sample from the Sarah Palin Interview Generator:

Q: How will you fix the economy?

A: The economy and putting it back on the right reasons and serving something greater than himself and not just let one party try to kind of that closed door, good old boy network that has been the Washington elite. I don’t know if the task is from Alaska that we work with our allies, pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it’s in their country, also. They understand the dangers of terrorists having a stronghold in regions of their country, also. They understand the dangers of terrorists having a stronghold in regions of their country, also. And I asked President Karzai, “Is that what you are seeking, also? That strategy that has much to do this with you.

OK, cracking this code may be harder than it appeared at first glance. Maybe we need some help from Tina Fey or something. But, then, how does one tell Tina Fey from Sarah Palin? What if Tina does the debate instead and nobody could tell?

Enquiring minds want to . . . well, “know” is a relative term, isn’t it?

Who pushed the Republicans in the Senate to vote against the economic bailout? Evidence is surfacing that Newt Gingrich was whipping the Republican House members to vote against the measure, mere moments before he came out reluctantly in favor of the measure. Yeah, the evidence is showing the man is twofaced. That should be no surprise to any of us, as he has been a Republican for a long time. That’s part of the initiation or something. Here’s Sam Stein at HuffPo, quoting from Andrea Mitchell’s appearance on MSNBC’s Morning Joe:

Gingrich was whipping up votes for the opposition, Mitchell said, apparently without the knowledge of the current GOP leader, John Boehner, who was responsible for recruiting enough support from his caucus to help ensure the bill’s passage. Ultimately, the GOP was only able to rally roughly a third of its members.

“Newt Gingrich,” she said on MSNBC, “I am told reliably by leading Republicans who are close to him, he was whipping against this up until the last minute, when he issued that face-saving statement. Newt Gingrich was telling people in the strongest possible language that this was a terrible deal, not only that it was a terrible deal, it was a disaster, it was the end of democracy as we know, it was socialism — and then at the last minute [he] comes out with a statement when the vote is already in place.”

Indeed, as Mitchell noted, shortly before the bill’s failure, Gingrich “reluctantly” came out in favor of its passage: “Therefore, while I am discouraged at the final collapse of the Bush Administration, and frustrated by the Democrats’ passion for the taxpayer’s money, I would reluctantly and sadly vote for the bailout were I still in office.”

Of course, Gingrich says nothing later on the day of the failed bailout vote about his role in the matter. He continues with his lying to Greta Van Susteren on her show on FoxNews:

VAN SUSTEREN: All right. You mentioned Senator McCain. He came back — he got criticized some, and the term political stunt — I’ll use that, my word, to describe what I think how people are calling it. What was — was his returning to Washington a contribution to trying to find a solution or not?

GINGRICH: Well, the Republicans in the House are the most conservative element in Washington. And they were firmly opposed to the bill, and nobody was paying any attention to them because they thought they could run over them. When Republican leader John Boehner went down to the White House with Senator McCain and they went around the room, everybody else had cut the deal. Everybody else was in on the fix. They got to Boehner, and he said, We can’t go along with it, the House Republicans. And McCain said essentially, I’m with Boehner.

At that point, Barney Frank and other liberal Democrats blew up because they thought that they had a deal. They thought the administration had basically sold out the House Republicans and was going to deliver them, and they suddenly realized that with Senator McCain siding with Congressman Boehner, that they had to negotiate. That was on Thursday.

Watch Greta’s interview with Gingrich: Pt. 1 | Pt. 2

There was a long, painful, hard negotiation. And the fact is that they dramatically improved the bill. I said this morning if I had been in the Congress, I would have hated it, it makes me very angry, but I would have voted yes. And I said that because I watched Congressman Roy Blunt and Congressman John Boehner and Congressman Cantor and Paul Ryan really improve the bill significantly. It was still not a good bill, but it was dramatically better.

That would not have happened without John McCain’s involvement. And by the way, on the other side, I don’t believe Senator Obama delivered a single vote in the House today to try to help pass this. I think he once again was voting present.

Not only does Gingrich refer to his role not one little bit, when evidently he played a major role in whipping up the fury of the House Republicans, but he comes back and criticizes Obama for not helping enough to pass the bill. What, was he disappointed his work to defeat the bill didn’t have a good enough opponent? Man, this guy is duplicitous. But we knew that. Back to the Morning Joe Show, Mike Barnicle says Gingrich did this as a prelude to his own candidacy for President in 2012. Harming the Us economy as a campaign trick? That sounds like a McCain-like stunt.

If Gingrich thinks his stunts in Congress are going to help, someone ought to remind him how his party was hurt when they shut down the government during the Clinton Administration. Right now, the public is blaming Republicans for everything going wrong in the economy, and I’m betting Gingrich’s work is tying them to economic failure. Where the Republicans are tied to economic failure, so will be John McCain.

In other news, John McCain has kicked Maureen Dowd off of his campaign plane. That’s just petty, grouchy old man stuff.

Not really! Are they sure? Well, he mentioned the possibility when interviewed by FoxNews. Here’s the link at TalkingPointsMemo.

His quote is, “I’ll do whatever is necessary, and I’ll put my Presidential campaign on the back burner if necessary.”

No, this isn’t some sort of time travel to last week.

Wow! This guy doesn’t learn.

Meanwhile, back at the Gallup poll, McCain ranks as less effective than Congress in addressing the bailout.

As noted in today’s New York Times story, John McCain had just as much as the American people from a bailout passing yesterday. He desperately needs to get the subject of the economy off the minds of Americans. He’s falling further in the polls, both the FoxNews/Rasmussen and the LA Times/Bloomberg. Heck, there’s even a second poll joining the outlier putting Obama slightly ahead in North Carolina. No, it is not looking good for Mr. McCain, and everywhere you look the wheels are coming off.

McCain’s campaign, against the evidence, think McCain acted heroically this last week in the face of the finaicial crisis. As I note here, McCain’s words from Sunday through Monday, when the bailout McCain staked his campaign on failed, were all over the map. No central message whatsoever. It gets worse when one looks at the video of McCain economic adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin defending McCain’s actions this past week. The guy sounds like Sarah Palin being interviewed by Katie Couric. (Hey, is that metaphor about Palin and Couric going to replace the example of the South Carolina Beaty Pageant contestant as an example of incoherence?) I’m betting Holtz-Eakin would love to quit his job and go back in time to think up new excuses for the failed reasons the Bush Administration chose for invading Iraq. That would surely be an easier job than defending the erratic behavior of John McCain.

At the same time the McCain campaign can’t seem to coordinate between John and Sarah. Sarah Palin goes off message, so McCain says it’s OK because she was only talking to a voter. McCain, meanwhile, wants to solve the healthcare crisis using clinics in WalMarts — a nice idea, but you just don’t SAY that people will get their healthcare at WalMart. He’s opening himself up to ridicule left and right. Ridicule? Ridicule? Time to note that Sarah Palin knows of no other case ever to come before the Supreme Court other than Roe v. Wade. That part of the Couric interview hit the cutting room floor. So there’s the reason the McCain campaign wasn’t slamming Couric, there was more out there showing Palin as unprepared.

So, what’s the main thrust of the last several days of action? It is the same as it was in the first debate between Obama and McCain. Obama is steady and Presidential, McCain is an unpredictable and angry old man. I sincerely hope this bailout gets settled later this week. While McCain surely deserves to lose this election, both for his performance and for the future of our country, it is a bit sad seeing him make such an utter fool of himself.

by Walter Brasch

The Republican leaders of the House of Representatives grabbed a half dozen bags of sincerity, looked directly into every TV camera they could find, and lied.

The House had just defeated, 228–205, a bupartisan $700 billion bailout bill. But it was the Democrats who were the subject of vicious rhetoric.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) “poisoned our conference,” screeched Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio), the Republican minority leader. He said the House would have voted for the bill “had it not been for the partisan speech the Speaker gave on the floor of the House.” Rep. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) specifically said that Pelosi’s speech changed the minds of about a dozen Republicans who voted against the bill. Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.), waving a copy of Pelosi’s speech, screamed out, “Here is the reason I believe why this vote failed!” The speech, he said, “frankly struck the tone of partisanship that frankly was inappropriate in this discussion.” Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a senior advisor to Sen. John McCain, was equally blunt—and equally wrong. The bailout failed, he said, because “Barack Obama and the Democrats put politics ahead of country.”

But it wasn’t the Democrats who brought about the bill’s defeat. The Democrats voted 140–95 for the bill; the Republicans voted 133–65 against the bill. Sen. Barack Obama supported the bill; Sen. John McCain didn’t seem to take a strong position either way. Nevertheless, the viciously partisan Republican leadership, eager to paint anything Democratic as vicious partisanship, couldn’t even get a majority of their own members to agree to the bailout, one that now had added protections for the taxpayer.

What infuriated the Republican leaders was Pelosi’s accurate portrayal of the Bush–Cheney Administration’s economic policies as “built on recklessness, on an anything-goes mentality, with no regulation, no supervision and no disciple in the system.” While driving America into the deepest deficit in its history, the Administration had usurped its own campaign lies that breathlessly panted the fear that the enemies of American consumers are “tax-and-spend liberals,” as if it was one word.

There are several reasons why this version of the bailout failed. Every member of the House is facing re-election in less than six weeks, and their constituents are angry. They’re angry at the government’s lack of oversight and regulation, supported and encouraged by Bush and McCain, that helped bring about the crisis. They’re angry at the failing mega-mammoth financial institutions that sacrificed the middle class to a horde of unbridled greed and incompetence. They’re angry at corporate executives who make millions while their companies are failing, and then get multi-million dollar “golden parachutes” that let them float into retirement, while the average taxpayer’s 401(k), with only a few thousand dollars may now be worth only half what it once was. They’re angry at “house flippers,” aided by easy-to-get mortgages and some unscrupulous real estate brokers, who made minor fortunes and helped raise housing prices to the point where middle-class families could no longer afford to own a home in an economy that was being held up by toothpicks.

But, most of all, consumers and members of Congress are furious at President Bush, Vice-President Cheney, and their Neocon gaggle who no longer have credibility. For seven years, the Bush–Cheney Administration has used fear as a bargaining weapon.

Six weeks after 9/11, the U.S. had the PATRIOT Act, a 342-page law, which few members of Congress read before voting for it, that pretending to stop terrorists essentially stripped much of our constitutional protections. And the people and their elected leaders agreed to it.

Using the tactics of fear, the Bush–Cheney Administration lied to the people, almost abandoned the hunt for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, and invaded Iraq, which had no connection to 9/11. And the people and their elected leaders agreed to it.

For the morally bankrupt Bush Corp., dissent is unpatriotic, un-American, and maybe even treasonous. “You’re either with us or against us,” President Bush told Americans. Because the people didn’t want to be seen as opposed to America, they and their leaders agreed to being bullied. “Support the troops,” Bush told Americans, but meant “Support me and my policies.” And Americans didn’t want to be seen as not supporting America’s soldiers, even if the Bush–Cheney Administration, didn’t give the troops pay raises, adequate body armor or medical care.

We are, said the Bush–Cheney Administration, “compassionate conservatives.” But, Katrina put an end to that lie.

This is an Administration that believes the environment is important only if it doesn’t interfere with private business. For years, Bush said he believed global warming doesn’t exist, and if it does it wasn’t caused by mankind. Only under the crushing weight of scientific evidence did Bush reluctantly have to modify his beliefs.

Almost eight years of incompetence and lies, with the President’s credibility lower than that of Three-Card Monty dealers in New York City, led Americans to finally realize they have been scammed. Bush had cried out “fear” once too often.

But, it wasn’t the PATRIOT Act, the Iraq War, or the destruction of the environment that brought about the people’s anger. It was their self-interest. In Bush’s Wild West economy, Americans have seen inflation, increased unemployment, foreclosures, and bankruptcies; they have seen their retirement plans dwindle in the vapors of economic chaos. The vote against the bailout was simply political reality by members of Congress who no longer were about to be stampeded by fear, scammed by lies, and whose own self-interest is to be re-elected.

[Walter Brasch’s latest book is the second edition of Sinking the Ship of State: The Presidency of George W. Bush (November 2007), available through amazon.com, bn.com, and other bookstores. You may contact Brasch at brasch@bloomu.edu or through his website at: www.walterbrasch.com]

Well, by now we know John McCain is today’s action hero, far more powerful than Chuck Norris or Mike Huckabee. Heck, I would compare him to Jack Bauer of 24, except Jack Bauer has friends and actually saves the day. They’ve both got that scruffy look, and Jack Bauer has been tortured in the line of duty as well. Of course, they’re both Mavericks, and they both get the babes.

But I digress. Today’s feature consists of some quotes from the last 24 or 36 hours or so. Ergo the title of this post. I’m still trying to figure out the coherence of these McCain quotes. The first comes on Sunday on This Week with George Stephanopoulos, with McCain claiming he was not acting the hero this past week, but that he is satisfied with the bailout package. From JohnMcCain.com:

Stephanopoulos: “What role did you play? How were you helpful do you believe in the process?”

John McCain: “I will let you and others be the judge of that. I did the best that I could. I came back because I wasn’t going to phone it in. America is in a crisis of almost unprecedented proportions. I should be doing whatever little I can to help this process. I’m a Teddy Roosevelt Republican. I got to get in the arena when America needs it, and if that judgment wants to be made whether I helped or hurt, I’ll be glad to accept the judgment of history. But I’m never going to not get engaged when the taxpayers and middle class of America are in danger of losing everything literally that they’ve worked all their lives for. I’m going to be out working on it. I won’t claim a bit of credit, okay, if that makes them feel better. But I’m going to be there working and trying to help solve this crisis. And I’m proud of John Boehner and Roy Blunt and Adam Putnam and all of the guys and men and women, Marsha Blackburn and others who in the House of Representatives stood up and got into these negotiations and became part of the solution.”

Let’s call that Noon yesterday, for the sake of argument. McCain boasts of his duty to his country, to be there trying as hard as he can, then he gets all humble and thanks all the other stalwart warriors he served with. Oh, and what’s that “if that makes them feel better” thing if not petulence at not being recognized as the biggest hero since the Green Lantern?

This morning in Columbus, OH Mr. McCain was not so shy about taking a whole bunch of credit for the bailout package. He was talking at a rally, admired by his adoring fans. He was playing rock star instead of fielding softball questions on TV from George Stephanopoulos. Mr. McCain seems quite pleased with himself, taking a great deal of credit, along with his party, for the plan that will save the country. Of course, he gives Barack Obama zero credit. That’s the way John McCain is, after all. He’s a loner, much like Pee Wee Herman. From JohnMcCain.com.

We need reform in Washington and on Wall Street. When the financial crisis threatened the economic security of all Americans, I laid out principles to protect hardworking Americans. I believed that inaction was not an option.

I put my campaign on hold for a couple days last week to fight for a rescue plan that put you and your economic security first. I fought for a plan that protected taxpayers, homeowners, consumers and small business owners.

I went to Washington last week to make sure that the taxpayers of Ohio and across this great country were not left footing the bill for mistakes made on Wall Street and in Washington.

Some people have criticized my decision, but I will never, ever be a president who sits on the sidelines when this country faces a crisis. Some of you may have noticed, but it’s not my style to simply “phone it in.”

I am a Teddy Roosevelt Republican. I believe our leaders belong “in the Arena” when our country faces a challenge. I’ve never been afraid of stepping in to solve problems for the American people, and I’m not going to stop now.

Senator Obama took a very different approach to the crisis our country faced. At first he didn’t want to get involved. Then he was “monitoring the situation.” That’s not leadership, that’s watching from the sidelines.

So, later on Monday John McCain found out that his Action Comic personna didn’t do a whole lot of good with the House of Representatives, at least. A whole bunch of his fellow Republicans disappointed him and decided to vote “No” on that little bill Mr. McCain worked so very hard for. Sobered, John McCain, perhaps knowing he was on National television, gives a couple brief remarks in DesMoines. He doesn’t blame his fellow Republicans, it seems, the ones in the House he gave cover to last Thursday. He doesn’t even blame Barack Obama this time. Of course there is no responsibility to be laid at John McCain’s own feet, either. He is both Teddy Roosevelt and Teddy Bear here. Here’s those words, from JohnMcCain.com:

“I was hopeful that the improved rescue plan would have had the votes needed to pass because addressing a credit crisis is of vital importance to families, small businesses, and every working American who must be assured that their assets are safe and protected and that our economy will continue to function.

“Today, I’ve spoken to the Federal Chairman Bernanke, Secretary Paulson, Congressional leaders and now it’s time for all members of Congress to go back to the drawing board.

“I call on Congress to get back obviously immediately to address this crisis. Our leaders are expected to leave partisanship at the door and come to the table to solve our problems. Senator Obama and his allies in Congress infused unnecessary partisanship into the process. Now is not the time to fix the blame. It’s time to fix the problem.

“I would hope that all our leaders, all of them, can put aside short-term political goals and do what’s in the best interest of the American people. Thank you.”

If you read between those lines, you’ll see that McCain thinks the guys who voted against this did so for political reasons. Watch carefully over the next few days to see if McCain doesn’t blow his top, as his narrow and stilted morality leads him to accusing people of playing politics all the time, especially when people disagree with him. . . . politically. It’s part of the blame game, subtle in this last quote, but ready to burdst out in a fit of temper, like the Incredible Hulk or something. Maybe Ahnold can give him lessons.

Finally, John McCain’s people blame Barack Obama for a crisis he did not make, and one in which he did not promise to fix with his surper powers. Barack Obama merely caucused with his fellow members of conference, deferring to those elected to lead each party. When asked, Obama attended meetings, but Barack Obama did not use his laser vision to not read the proposal, as did John McCain, he did not leak to the press that he spent the day talking on the phone to the waiter down at the little Chinese restaurant, as did John McCain, and he did not suspend his campaign from a coat hanger at the Hays Adams Hotel, as did John McCain. Yes, John McCain thinks Barack Obama was at fault, even though it is John McCain’s friends on the GOP side of the aisle who didn’t vote for McCain’s masterful plan. From Politico:

“From the minute John McCain suspended his campaign and arrived in Washington to address this crisis, he was attacked by the Democratic leadership: Senators Obama and Reid, Speaker Pelosi and others. Their partisan attacks were an effort to gain political advantage during a national economic crisis. By doing so, they put at risk the homes, livelihoods and savings of millions of American families.

“Barack Obama failed to lead, phoned it in, attacked John McCain, and refused to even say if he supported the final bill.

“Just before the vote, when the outcome was still in doubt, Speaker Pelosi gave a strongly worded partisan speech and poisoned the outcome.

“This bill failed because Barack Obama and the Democrats put politics ahead of country.” — McCain-Palin senior policy adviser Doug Holtz-Eakin.

There you go, four quotes in little over a 24 hour period. John McCain, like Jack Bauer, has solved his crisis. At first he didn’t know who to blame for forcing him to put on his superhero costume, but by the end of the 24 hours, he knows to blame Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and those dreaded Democrats.

Time for McCain to step aside and let the real heros take the stage. I may not like the bailout package, but I’m scared enough right now to want something. The one they voted on today directed the restructuring of mortgages in those mortgage backed bonds bought up by the Treasury. Beyond what this “investment” Mr. Paulson discusses for the taxpayers, I’m thinking it is wise to renegotiate tens of thousands of loans that are headed towards default. If you buy them for 25 cents on the dollar, save half of two thirds of the loans, then sell those mortgage backed securites back for 40 cents on the dollar, that just might do the economy some good. Frankly, I don’t care about the Golden Parachute stuff so much, just making sure people on the bottom get to keep their houses, while we also make sure to protect liquidity. Let’s just make sure McCain isn’t involved in any of this next attempt at passage of a bill.

Who are those real heros? The leaders of the House and Senate. McCain needs to let them do their job. And he needs to get a message and keep to it. Maybe John McCain needs to help in tutoring BatGirl on how to debate without speaking in tongues.

We’re in uncharted waters with a leaky boat and a storm on the horizon…but the GOP wants us to know that Nancy Pelosi is a mean-spirited partisan.

Let me see if I can get this straight. The Republican president of the United States sends the Secretary of the Treasury and the Federal Reserve Chairman to Capital Hill with a message of impending economic doom…asking the party in power to put aside partisanship and pass necessary legislation.

The party in power (Democrats) holds its nose and puts together a bill premised upon the gravity of the situation, endures John McCain’s grandstanding at the eleventh hour, allows him to characterize his involvement as critical to the success of the process, spends hours meeting with those in the GOP who want to amend the bill, comes to an agreement on a bill the GOP leadership can support, and then brings the bill to a vote.

In that vote, over sixty percent of Democrats support legislation that was requested by the head of the opposition party, two thirds of the presidents fellow Republicans jump ship and oppose the bill, and the GOP house leadership wants Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats to shoulder the blame?! Well there you have it…nothing illogical about that, right?

Frankly, I’ve personally reached the point at which I’m opposed to any attempt to glue what remains of our failed government back together. Unless and until politicians are held accountable for the consequences of their actions, I’m in favor of pulling the rest of the metaphorical china from the cupboard and smashing it all on the floor. I say as much because I don’t think anything will change until the American public is forced to face reality…even if that means standing in line for a loaf of bread and a bowl of soup.

Look, let’s be honest as to what all of this GOP partisanship is about. From their self-serving perspective, it’s power and money…and they’re willing to do whatever it takes to obtain both. Voters, on the other hand, have allowed themselves to be drawn into an ideological struggle to define morality. Taken together, this is the underlying formula for the disaster we’re witnessing.

Instead of a candid discussion on the merits of rescuing our financial structure, the political combatants have spent years defining our differences in terms of good versus evil; right versus wrong. While voters blindly engage in this theoretical tug of war, the real battle for dominance is waged in the trenches…replete with lobbyists looking to commit larceny in tandem with their trusted troopers…the political elite.

The unseen metrics of today’s maelstrom center upon the pursuit of profit. Those house Republicans who opposed today’s legislation tell us they are concerned about main street. In truth they, in concert with their corporate benefactors who want the government to insure their success without foregoing the profits that may eventually result from the government’s intervention, see main street as a peripheral player.

Let me explain. If the bail out takes the current form, the companies that avail themselves of it will have to forego the upside of the very assets that have made them a ton of money during the housing bubble and now leads them to the edge of financial ruin. Conversely, if the legislation is structured as an insurance mechanism, they receive the financial assist they need without foregoing the future profits that may ensue with the passage of time and an improved economy.

In other words, house Republicans are carrying the water of Wall Street while telling us they’re looking out for the interests of taxpayers. You see, one need only look at the proposal that came from the Bush administration…a virtual blank check to assist their wealthy benefactors…to understand their intentions. Only when the legislation, as modified by the Democrats and a handful of Republicans, became apparent, did the GOP revolt materialize. It did so at the behest of their capitalist (and opportunist) friends who stood to see their profit potential handed over to the American taxpayer.

Don’t be fooled…the motivation of many in the GOP, who voted against this bill, has little to do with those of us living on Main Street. The proof is found in today’s vote…and the reality that a bail out is inevitable. The acrimony simply centers on who gets the lion’s share of the benefit.

(more…)

The Office of the Inspector General report is out concerning the US Attorney firings. You can read about the story here at the New York Times, or read the whole 392 page report right here at the DOJ web site. The Gist of it is that there is enough evidence to appoint a Special Prosecutor, Acting US Attorney Nora Dennehy of the District of Connecticut. It appears Ms. Dennehy has no close ties to the miscreants involved in this mess, so maybe we will find out what really happened.

TPM Muckraker is sifting through the report, and they’re reporting that Alberto Gonzales is at the center of a matrix of people and offices who stonewalled the report, including the DOJ, Pete Domeneci’s office, the White House, Harriet Miers, Karl Rove, etc. This is startling in its implications. Dennehy is not conducting a fact-finding mission, but a criminal investigation. I’m thinking it would be good to find some criminal charges here, but I think it is also important to identify the massive incompetences of Alberto Gonzales, as it will shed light on what Republicans think is par for the course for good governemtn. No, I’m not saying we shouldn’t call for prosecution, but incompetence is far more satisfactory to make fun of.

Heck, and since I’m sure someone else is dwelling on the criminal aspects of this issue, I’m going to look at the conclusions of the report concerning Gonzales and his henchmen/women and list a few instances of incompetence right here. From page 327 of the report of the OIG:

We found that Gonzales delegated the entire project to Sampson and provided little direction or supervision. According to Gonzales, he told Sampson to consult with the senior leadership of the Department, obtain a consensus recommendation as to which U.S. Attorneys should be removed, and coordinate with the White House on the process. However, Gonzales acknowledged to us that he did not discuss with Sampson how to evaluate the U.S. Attorneys or which factors to consider. We found that Gonzales eventually approved the removals of a group of U.S. Attorneys without inquiring about the process Sampson used to select them for removal, or why each name was on Sampson’s removal list. Gonzales also did not know who Sampson had consulted with or what these individuals had said about each of the U.S. Attorneys identified for removal. Instead, Gonzales told us he “assumed” that Sampson engaged in an evaluation process, that the resulting recommendations were based on performance, and that the recommendations reflected the consensus of senior managers in the Department. Each of those assumptions was faulty.

Every one of Alberto Gonzales’ assumptions were faulty? That is a case of rampant incompetence, but I’d say it has to be more than that. Man, what kind of operation was he running? He appoints Sampson, giving him little direction, then follows and supervises not one little bit along the way. Alarm bells go off for me that Gonzales was setting himself up for deniability all the way. If we want a clue to why a criminal investigation is now in process, check out the next two paragraphs of the OIG Report:

Gonzales also said he had little recollection of being briefed about Sampson’s review process as it progressed over a year and a half. He claimed to us and to Congress an extraordinary lack of recollection about the entire removal process. In his most remarkable claim, he testified that he did not remember the meeting in his conference room on November 27, 2006, when the plan was finalized and he approved the removals of the U.S. Attorneys, even though this important meeting occurred only a few months prior to his testimony.

This was not a minor personnel matter that should have been hard to remember. Rather, it related to an unprecedented removal of a group of highlevel Presidential appointees, which Sampson and others recognized would result in significant controversy. Nonetheless, Gonzales conceded that he exercised virtually no oversight of the project, and his claim to have very little recollection of his role in the process is extraordinary and difficult to accept.

I’m betting Gonzales was involved in every aspect of this, or perhaps he allowed Kyle Sampson to coordinate who would be fired for political reasons with Harriet Miers and Karl Rove. There’s the deniability bit that Alberto Gonzales will wish he’d never engineered. Yes, he’s going to get caught on this thing, and it will likely end up in some sort of criminal proceeding. But right now we have ample evidence of Gonzales’ incompetence. sure, we can assume guilt, but the incompetence is damaging enough that Mr. Gonzales should be booted fromt he bar in every state in this union. The following paragraph on page 331 is just as devastating as the other passages quoted above.

In short, we believe that senior Department officials – particularly the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney – abdicated their responsibility to safeguard the integrity and independence of the Department by failing to ensure that the removal of U.S. Attorneys was not based on improper political considerations.

Of course, President Bush should feel the same amount of shame for appointing Alberto Gonzales as he felt for appointing Mike Brown. What, he felt no shame for that? Well, then I can only conclude with. . .

Way to go, Gonzalesie!

Good for Barack Obama on this one. The rest of us out here on the Left Blogzome are laughing at Sarah Palin, the media is writing obsessive stories on her choice of wardrobe, prehaps because they can’t understand her words, and the Radical Right Wing Christian Clerics are smiling adoringly, unwilling to see any fault in the Veep candidate who can’t construct a coherent sentence. But Barack Obama refuses to comment negatively or positively about Sarah Palin. He refuses to get sucked into that Republican trap of attacking a woman, on that’s a good strategy. Here he is in a transcript from yesterday’s Face The Nation, provided by The Caucus at the New York Times:

Q. Sarah Palin claimed in an interview that Alaska’s proximity to Russia somehow enhances her foreign policy experience and credentials. Do you agree with that?

A. “I will let the American people make a judgment on that.”

Q. Well, do you believe she’s qualified?

A. “Again, I think it’s important for the American people to make a judgment based on what they hear from Sarah Palin herself. More importantly, I think we’re electing a president before — alongside a vice president – but the president ultimately is going to be in charge.

“I think what people have to ask themselves, is John McCain equipped to deal with the 21st century challenges that we have? Is he able to look to the future a